Den 28.08.2016 12:55, skrev 'Leyne, Sean' s...@broadviewsoftware.com
[firebird-support]:
> I'm using Firebird 2.5.2.26539.
Any chance that another trigger is changing the value?
>>> I was thinking that myself, but Patrick said that it was the "old" value
>>> which
>> was being changed
> >>> I'm using Firebird 2.5.2.26539.
> >>
> >> Any chance that another trigger is changing the value?
> >
> > I was thinking that myself, but Patrick said that it was the "old" value
> > which
> was being changed to the "new" value.
>
> Right. Perhaps NEW is changed to OLD?
Patrick??
Please
Hello Sean,
>>> For some reason they both have the new value and I can't figure out why.
>>> If I didn't misread all the articles, I've found, completely, then
>>> they should be different, shouldn't they?
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm using Firebird 2.5.2.26539.
>>
>> Any chance that another trigger is
Thomas,
> > For some reason they both have the new value and I can't figure out why.
> > If I didn't misread all the articles, I've found, completely, then
> > they should be different, shouldn't they?
> >
> >
> > I'm using Firebird 2.5.2.26539.
>
> Any chance that another trigger is changing
Hi,
> shouldn't the values of new.somefield and old.somefield be different in
> an after update trigger, when the value of that field has definitely
> changed?
>
>
> For some reason they both have the new value and I can't figure out why.
> If I didn't misread all the articles, I've found,
Would it be possible that the original update triggered a second update on the
same record, hence the value of new and old are the same? For instance a
trigger after update calls a procedure to update the same record, the first run
of the trigger will have old <> new, but perhaps on the second
> Use "IS DISTINCT" instead of "<>".
I've tried this too already - still no difference...
Some other comparisons with other fields in the same trigger seem to work fine
even with '<>', this one doesn't...
27.08.2016 12:04, patrick_mar...@yahoo.com [firebird-support] wrote:
> For some reason they both have the new value and I can't figure out why.
Use "IS DISTINCT" instead of "<>".
--
WBR, SD.
