On Mon, 23 Sep 2002 16:55:48 -0400, Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >Bruce Momjian <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Here's an example: > >CREATE RULE foo AS ON INSERT TO mytable DO >( INSERT INTO log1 VALUES (... , now(), ...); > INSERT INTO log2 VALUES (... , now(), ...) ); > >I think it's important that these commands store the same timestamp in >both log tables (not to mention that any now() being stored into mytable >itself generate that same timestamp).
I agree. SQL99 mentions this requirement for triggers and I think we can apply it to rules as well. Here is another example: BEGIN; INSERT INTO foo VALUES (..., CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, ...); -- wait a few seconds INSERT INTO foo VALUES (..., CURRENT_TIMESTAMP, ...); COMMIT; Please don't ask me, why I would want that, but the standard demands the timestamps to be different. >After all, it's only a minor implementation >detail that you chose to fire these logging operations via a rule and >not by client-side logic. No, it's fundamentally different whether you do something in one SQL-statment or per a sequence of statements. Servus Manfred ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
