On Tue, Jul 17, 2007 at 05:49:15PM +0200, De Leeuw Guy wrote: > > Your trigger function runs inside the transaction of the calling > > statement, unless you have explicitly started a transaction. > > > Not possible from a trigger
Yes, sorry, I phrased that wrong. Let me put it differently: your trigger runs only inside the transaction of the calling statement, unless that statement itself is inside a longer explicitly-called transaction. For example: t1 t2 BEGIN UPDATE table_with_trigger SELECT something SELECT ...FROM trigger_effect INSERT something else COMMIT In this case, t2 does _not_ see the effects of the trigger in t1, because those effects are not visible until the COMMIT. But t1 t2 UPDATE table_with_trigger SELECT something SELECT...FROM trigger_effect INSERT something else in this case, t2 _does_ see the effects, because the trigger's effects are COMMITted implicitly after the UPDATE statement. > Yes true, It's my first step with postgres but also with a relationnal > database. > But I'm sure that with COPY the data are not correctly updated and > if I edit the file loaded by the COPY command and adapt it with each > line with a command INSERT all work fine. If I read that right, you admit that you are inexperienced with the concepts and the software, and you are unable to show us all the relevant code or send us a precise description of what you are doing; but, you are convinced nevertheless that the problem is a bug or deficiency in PostgreSQL that nobody else seems to be having, and not a problem with your approach? I suggest you think again. A -- Andrew Sullivan | [EMAIL PROTECTED] However important originality may be in some fields, restraint and adherence to procedure emerge as the more significant virtues in a great many others. --Alain de Botton ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly