I'm new to postgresql (and therefore rules) and I've looked around, but can't really find an example calling a 'global' function.
I am using a normalized database where rows will be flagged as deleted rather than deleted. However, I would like to retain the DELETE FROM... functionality for the end user, by using an instead of delete rule to update the table's deleted_time column. Each table should, therefore, be able to use a common function, but I am not sure how this would be called in this context, or how it would have access to NEW and OLD?
CREATE OR REPLACE RULE rule_tablename_delete AS ON DELETE
TO tablename DO INSTEAD (
/// call function here to update the table's delete_time column
);
Is this even the correct approach? (I note that INSTEAD OF triggers are restricted to views only)
Just use an UPDATE statement:
create rule rule_tablename_delete as
on delete to tablename
do instead
update tablename
set delete_time = current_timestamp
where id = old.id
and delete_time is null;
Assuming that the id column is the primary key of that table.
Some more examples are in the manual: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/9.1/static/rules-update.html
Related
I am trying to wrap my head around row level security in Postgres. Unfortunately the documentation is not very verbose on the matter. My problem is the following:
I have two tables: locations and locations_owners. There is a TRIGGER set on INSERT for locations, which will automatically add a new row to the locations_owners table including the request.jwt.claim.sub variable.
This works all just fine, however when I want to create a policy for DELETE like this:
CREATE POLICY location_delete ON eventzimmer.locations FOR DELETE TO organizer USING(
(SELECT EXISTS (SELECT name FROM protected.locations_owners AS owners WHERE owners.name = name AND owners.sub = (SELECT current_setting('request.jwt.claim.sub', true))))
);
It will always evaluate to true, no matter the actual content. I know that I can call a custom procedure with SELECT here, however I ended up with the following questions:
what is the scope of a policy? Can I access tables? Can I access procedures? The documentation says "Any SQL conditional expression" so SELECT EXISTS should be fine
how are the column names of the rows mapped to the policy. The examples just magically use the column names (which I adopted by using the name variable), however I have not found any documentation about what this actually does
what is the magic user_name variable. Where does it come from? I believe it is the current role which is executing the query, but how can I know?
why is there no WITH CHECK expression available for DELETE? If I understand correctly, WITH CHECK will fail any row with invalid constraint, which is the behaviour I would prefer (because otherwise PostgREST will always return 204)
I am a little bit confused by the astonishingly missing amount of information in the (otherwise) very good documentation of PostgreSQL. Where is this information? How can I find it?
For the sake of completeness I have also attached the column definitions below:
CREATE TABLE eventzimmer.locations (
name varchar PRIMARY KEY NOT NULL,
latitude float NOT NULL,
longitude float NOT NULL
);
CREATE TABLE IF NOT EXISTS protected.locations_owners (
name varchar NOT NULL REFERENCES eventzimmer.locations(name) ON DELETE CASCADE,
sub varchar NOT NULL
);
Many of the questions will become clear once you understand how row level security is implemented: the conditions in the policies will automatically be added to the query, just as if you added another WHERE condition.
Use EXPLAIN to see the query plan, and you will see the policy's conditions in there.
So you can use any columns from the table on which the policy is defined.
Essentially, you can use anything in a policy definition that you could use in a WHERE conditions: Function calls, subqueries and so on.
You can also qualify the column name with the table name if that is required for disambiguation. This can be used in the policy from your example: The unqualified name is interpreted as owners.name, so the test always succeeds. To fix the policy, use locations.name instead of name.
There is no magic user_name variable, and I don't know where you get that from. There is, however, the current_user function, which is always available and can of course also be used in a policy definition.
WITH CHECK is a condition that the new row added by INSERT or UPDATE must fulfill. Since DELETE doesn't add any data, WITH CHECK doesn't apply to it.
I'm currently working with Firebird and attempting to utilize UPDATE OR INSERT functionality in order to solve a particular new case within our software. Basically, we are needing to pull data off of a source and put it into an existing table and then update that data at regular intervals and adding any new references. The source is not a database so it isn't a matter of using MERGE to link the two tables (unless we make a separate table and then merge it, but that seems unnecessary).
The problem rests on the fact we cannot use the primary key of the existing table for matching, because we need to match based off of the ID we get from the source. We can use the MATCHING clause no problem but the issue becomes that the primary key of the existing table will be updated to the next key every time because it has to be in the query because of the insertion chance. Here is the query (along with c# parameter additions) to demonstrate the problem.
UPDATE OR INSERT INTO existingtable (PrimaryKey, UniqueSourceID, Data) VALUES (?,?,?) MATCHING (UniqueSourceID);
this.AddInParameter("PrimaryKey", FbDbType.Integer, itemID);
this.AddInParameter("UniqueSourceID", FbDbType.Integer, source.id);
this.AddInParameter("Data", FbDbType.SmallInt, source.data);
Problem is shown that every time the UPDATE triggers, the primary key will also change to the next incremented key I need a way to leave the primary key alone when updating, but if it is inserting I need to insert it.
Do not generate primary key manually, let a trigger generate it when nessesary:
CREATE SEQUENCE seq_existingtable;
SET TERM ^ ;
CREATE TRIGGER Gen_PK FOR existingtable
ACTIVE BEFORE INSERT
AS
BEGIN
IF(NEW.PrimaryKey IS NULL)THEN NEW.PrimaryKey = NEXT VALUE FOR seq_existingtable;
END^
SET TERM ; ^
Now you can omit the PK field from your statement:
UPDATE OR INSERT INTO existingtable (UniqueSourceID, Data) VALUES (?,?) MATCHING (UniqueSourceID);
and when the insert is triggered by the statement then the trigger will take care of creating the PK. If you need to know the generated PK then use the RETURNING clause of the UPDATE OR INSERT statement.
I got table a
CREATE TABLE test (
id SERIAL,
name character varying NOT NULL,
PRIMARY KEY (id)
);
a view
CREATE VIEW TEST_VIEW AS
SELECT id,name
FROM test;
and just want to forward a given update queue to the actual table behind the view
CREATE RULE TEST_VIEW_UPDATE
AS ON UPDATE TO TEST_VIEW
DO INSTEAD UPDATE TEST;
But this approach results in an error as the SET statement is probably missing. How can I do this correctly in the most generic (therefore no limitation on what is actually updated) way?
On PostgreSQL 9.3 this will work automatically and without changes. PostgreSQL will create simple views as updateable by default.
In prior versions, specify all columns in the UPDATE. There's no wildcard.
If you're on 9.1 or above (which you should always mention in every question - select version()) you should use an INSTEAD OF view trigger rather than a rule.
As far as I know, it's not possible to do it like this, you have to write actual command:
CREATE RULE TEST_VIEW_UPDATE
AS ON UPDATE TO TEST_VIEW
DO INSTEAD UPDATE TEST set name = NEW.name, col1 = NEW.col1 where id = NEW.id;
It's also possible to do what you want with triggers - check this and this links.
I am fairly new to PostgreSQL (spoilt by django ORM!), and I would like to create a trigger which updates a table based on entries of another table.
So, I have the following table on my schema:
collection_myblogs(id, col1,col2,title,col4,col5)
..where field id is autogenerated. Now, I have a new table created like so:
CREATE TABLE FullText(id SERIAL NOT NULL, content text NOT NULL);
ALTER TABLE ONLY FullText ADD CONSTRAINT fulltext_pkey PRIMARY KEY (id);
and I insert values from collection_myblogs like so:
INSERT INTO FullText(content) SELECT title FROM collection_myblogs;
All fine so far...I would now like a trigger on FullText such that FullText updates itself with new entries everytime collection_myblogs has a new entry. So, I attempted creating a trigger as following:
CREATE TRIGGER collection_ft_update BEFORE INSERT OR UPDATE ON collection_myblogs FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE ft_update();
Now, I am not entirely sure what should go on ft_update() function, and at the moment, I have:
CREATE FUNCTION ft_update() RETURNS trigger AS '
BEGIN
INSERT INTO FullText(content) SELECT new.title;
return new;
END
' LANGUAGE plpgsql;
..which works fine for INSERTS but not UPDATES. i.e if I update the title of the orginal column collections_myblog(title) it appears as a new entry on FullText I am unsure how to deal with ids here.
I would like the ids i.e primary keys to be the same on each table. So, the idea for me is to have FullText(id, content) == collection_myblogs(id, title) - if this makes sense. So, the id and the content should be replicated from collection_myblogs table. How would one go about achieving this?
My understanding is that I can use a trigger before any insert or an update on my collection_myblogs and somehow maintain FullText(id, content) == collection_myblogs(id, title)
I would appreciate any guidance on this.
There are actually a large number of ways to handle this problem. Some examples:
Use table inheritance to create an "interface" to your data (no trigger needed, the abstract table ends up functioning like a view). This is complicated territory though.
Use the trigger approach like you do and then handle UPDATE and DELETE separately. The big issue here is that if you have two areas of text that are identical, your update trigger needs to be able to separate them.
There are many others but those should get you started.
Actually, it turned out to be quite simple. Just had to follow this
I use DB2 Express-C.
I have ON INSERT trigger on a table, where I insert the new row into another table.
Is there a way not to insert the new row into the table on which the trigger is defined?
Any help is appreciated, thank you
Take a look at create trigger and the INSTEAD OF option:
Specifies that the associated triggered action replaces the action
against the subject view. Only one INSTEAD OF trigger is allowed for
each kind of operation on a given subject view (SQLSTATE 428FP).
Typically something like this can be done by evaluating whether a special register (e.g., CURRENT USER) has a particular value.
create trigger trigger1
after insert on schema.table
referencing new as n
for each row
when (CURRENT USER <> 'NAMSARAY')
insert into schema.tablecopy values (n.c1, n.c2, ...);
If you are on DB2 9.7 or later, you could also consider defining a variable and using that variable as a control of whether or not the trigger will perform its action.
create variable schema.var1 smallint default 0;
Then you can check the value of this variable in the trigger. Unless an application has explicitly set the variable to a predetermined value (-9999 in the example below), the trigger will fire:
create trigger trigger2
after insert on schema.table
referencing new as n
for each row
when (schema.var1 <> -9999)
insert into schema.tablecopy values (n.c1, n.c2, ...);