Re: RULE vs TRIGGER

On Tue, Jul 31, 2001 at 11:05:37AM -0700, Stephan Szabo wrote:
> I meant using a lock table statement explicitly at the
> beginning of the trigger (LOCK TABLE tbl; -- possibly
> would have to be through execute, I'm not sure) which
> I would presume would mean that the "second" would 
> have to wait at that point until the first transaction
> finished completely.  Of course this cuts down your
> concurrency as only one transaction calling this would
> be able to run and the rest would have to wait.

hmm. so, how about

	create rule
		add_new_item as
		on insert to fake_view
		do instead (
			begin work;
			lock table _real_data;
			insert into _real_data ( ... ) values ( ... );
			commit work;
		);

would something like this be legal...? (i.e. what's the syntax
necessary to make it happen behind-the-scenes?)

-- 
Khan said that revenge is a dish best served cold. I think 
sometimes it's best served hot, chunky, and foaming. 
	- P.J.Lee ('79-'80)
 
will@serensoft.com
http://sourceforge.net/projects/newbiedoc -- we need your brain!
http://www.dontUthink.com/ -- your brain needs us!