Thanks Mike.
That's easy then.
Bear with me...
What happens to rows in other tables?
- The label field will match in asset.call_number is the call number
- asset.copy contains the barcode
- metabib.full has marc field info. (Is this index that will get rebuilt?)
--
F. Grant Johnson
Systems
On Tue, 14 Oct 2008 08:53:36 -0400, Grant Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
Thanks Brandon,
Keep me in that loop ...
We can do some testing for the resolution when it comes.
Cheers
Grant
Changeset 10858 (http://svn.open-ils.org/trac/ILS/changeset/10858) should
resolve the hit count
On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Grant Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Thanks Mike.
That's easy then.
Bear with me...
What happens to rows in other tables?
- The label field will match in asset.call_number is the call number
- asset.copy contains the barcode
Actually, asset.call_number
Okay -
'-1 instead of the records' should be '-1 instead on the records' right?
So in your scenario:
BEGIN;
DROP RULE protect_bib_rec_delete ON biblio.record_entry;
--
-- ... delete some records ...
-- ... set record in asset.call_number to -1 for each call number.
--
CREATE RULE
I think you have the 'delete some records' and 'set record' lines
backwards... The foreign key constraint will prevent the deletion of
b.re if any a.call_numbers's point to them...
so, something like
BEGIN;
DROP RULE protect_bib_rec_delete ON biblio.record_entry;
UPDATE asset.call_number SET
Thanks Don,
Almost there.
Can you verify that
asset.call_number.record = biblio.record_entry.id ?
--
F. Grant Johnson
Systems Coordinator
Robertson Library
University of Prince Edward Island
On 2008/10/17 at 4:08 PM, in message [EMAIL PROTECTED], Don
McMorris [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Grant Johnson wrote:
Thanks Don,
Almost there.
Can you verify that
asset.call_number.record = biblio.record_entry.id ?
Yup!
A little tip, if you do a '\d [table]', it will show foreign key
constraints (among a lot of other useful info). In this case, I see
# \d asset.call_number
...
