RE: Strange DB Trigger behavior
- From: "Mercadante, Thomas F (LABOR)" <Thomas.Mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "Toon Koppelaars" <toon.koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:11:56 -0400
Thanks Toon. Others have written the exact same thing. I guess my
memory is playing tricks on me.
Tom
________________________________
From: Toon Koppelaars [mailto:toon.koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 2:00 PM
To: Mercadante, Thomas F (LABOR)
Cc: ORACLE-L
Subject: Re: Strange DB Trigger behavior
I would expect that when a row is being updated and a
modify_date was not provided in the update statement, that ...
I think you should change this to:
I would expect that when a row is being updated and a modify_date was
provided and assigned to NULL in the update statement, that ...
Haven't tested it though, but it's what I would suspect.
On Mon, Jul 13, 2009 at 7:54 PM, Mercadante, Thomas F (LABOR)
<Thomas.Mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
All,
I am running a 10.2.0.2 database on Aix.
I have standard db triggers on tables that are not acting as I expect.
Please give me a sanity check:
create or replace trigger tran_data_biu
before insert or update
on tran_Data
for each row
begin
if updating then
if :new.modify_date is null then
:new.modify_date := sysdate;
end if;
end if;
end;
I would expect that when a row is being updated and a modify_date was
not provided in the update statement, that the above trigger would fill
the column in with sysdate. But this is not happening. The only time
the above happens is when the column is null the first time. After a
date exists, the "new" value is populated with the "old" value.
Does this make sense to you? My memory might be slipping, but that is
what I would expect.
Thanks
Tom
--
Toon Koppelaars
RuleGen BV
+31-615907269
Toon.Koppelaars@xxxxxxxxxxx
www.RuleGen.com
TheHelsinkiDeclaration.blogspot.com
(co)Author: "Applied Mathematics for Database Professionals"
www.RuleGen.com/pls/apex/f?p=14265:13
Other related posts:
