Trigger caused by an update statement inside another trigger - sql

Suppose I have the following tables:
CREATE TABLE foo (
id_foo int NOT NULL,
import int NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT foo_pk PRIMARY KEY(id_foo)
);
CREATE TABLE bar (
id_bar int NOT NULL,
id_foo int NOT NULL,
import int NOT NULL,
CONSTRAINT bar_pk PRIMARY KEY(id_bar)
);
ALTER TABLE bar ADD CONSTRAINT fk_bar FOREIGN KEY(id_foo) REFERENCES foo(id_foo);
So, the import column of the foo table must equal the sum of the import column in bar table.
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION foo_restriction() RETURNS TRIGGER AS
$$
BEGIN
IF (NEW.import != (SELECT COALESCE(SUM(import),0) FROM bar WHERE id_foo = NEW.id_foo)) THEN
RAISE EXCEPTION 'import column in foo must be equal in bar table.';
END IF;
RETURN NEW;
END;
$$
LANGUAGE plpgsql;
But I want to automatically sum the new import value in bar to the foo reference.
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION bar_insert() RETURNS TRIGGER AS
$$
BEGIN
UPDATE foo SET import = import + NEW.import WHERE id_foo = NEW.id_foo;
RETURN NEW;
END;
$$
LANGUAGE plpgsql;
CREATE TRIGGER TR_fooRestriction AFTER INSERT OR UPDATE ON foo FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE foo_restriction();
CREATE TRIGGER TR_barInsert AFTER INSERT ON bar FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE bar_insert();
Then the following statement should not work:
INSERT INTO foo(id_foo, import) VALUES(1,25); --FAIL. Works ok.
The following instruction insert a correct tuple for foo, with import = 0.
INSERT INTO foo(id_foo, import) VALUES(2,0); --OK.
But, when I'm trying to add new values in the bat table, the database show me 'import column in foo must be equal in bar table.':
INSERT INTO bar(id_bar, id_foo, import) VALUES
(1,2,100),(2,2,160),(3,2,40);
Whats happening here?, both triggers are executed after each new row, so the restriction in foo table should not be activated in the last statement.
How can I do to fix it?
Thanks!

An AFTER INSERT trigger is executed after insert statement is executed, not after each row is inserted.
So your trigger should work well in statements inserting a single row, but not with multirow inserts.
To test this behaviour run this script in psql:
drop table if exists test;
create table test (id int);
create or replace function test_trigger()
returns trigger language plpgsql as $$
begin
raise notice '%', (select count(*) from test);
return null;
end $$;
create trigger test_trigger
after insert on test
for each row execute procedure test_trigger();
insert into test values (1), (2), (3);
DROP TABLE
CREATE TABLE
CREATE FUNCTION
CREATE TRIGGER
NOTICE: 3
NOTICE: 3
NOTICE: 3
INSERT 0 3
For the documentation:
When a row-level AFTER trigger is fired, all data changes made by the outer command are already complete, and are visible to the invoked trigger function.
You could update foo with a sum of values from bar in bar_insert():
update foo
set import = (
select sum(import)
from bar where id_foo = new.id_foo)
where id_foo = new.id_foo;
return null;
However, the best solution is a view. If foo only aggregates import, drop the table and create the view instead:
create or replace view foo_view as
select id_foo, sum(import) as import
from bar
group by id_foo;
If foo contains some other data, remove import from foo and create the view:
create or replace view foo_view as
select foo.*, sum(bar.import) as import_total
from bar
join foo using(id_foo)
group by foo.id_foo;
You do not need any triggers, all is done automatically.

Related

trigger insert only if tupel satisfies condition

I want to create a trigger which checks before insert if the tupel which is supposed to be inserted holds a specific condition (which also depends on another table).
For example:
create trigger or replace check_tupel
before insert on A
for each row
execute
if exists (select x,y from B where B.x = A.x and B.y = A.y)
Oh I am using postgreSQL 13.
EDIT: Yes I know that I can do this without a trigger, but I am asking for a solution with a trigger for a reason.
I hope there is a way to do this... My other idea was to create a UDF which gets called before insert but I do not know how to check the condition in this UDF and only insert if the function returns true.
If you simply wanna automatically validate a record before inserting it on table A based on table B using a User Defined Function, you do not need a trigger at all. Consider adding a simple CHECK CONSTRAINT:
CREATE TABLE a (
x int,
y int,
CONSTRAINT exists_in_b CHECK (NOT myfunc(x,y))
);
Demo: db<>fiddle
CREATE TABLE b (x int,
y int);
INSERT INTO b VALUES (42,42);
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION myfunc(x int, y int)
RETURNS BOOLEAN AS $BODY$
SELECT EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM b WHERE b.y =$1 AND b.x=$2 )
$BODY$
LANGUAGE sql;
CREATE TABLE a (
x int,
y int,
CONSTRAINT exists_in_b CHECK (NOT myfunc(x,y)) -- here the magic happens
);
Now, if we try to insert a value that our function does not validate, it raises an exception:
INSERT INTO a VALUES (42,42);
ERROR: new row for relation "a" violates check constraint "exists_in_b"
DETAIL: Failing row contains (42, 42).
SQL state: 23514
EDIT (See comments): Solution using a trigger
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION myfunc()
RETURNS TRIGGER AS $BODY$
BEGIN
IF EXISTS (SELECT 1 FROM b WHERE b.y =NEW.y AND b.x=NEW.x ) THEN
RAISE EXCEPTION 'tuple already exists in "b": % %', NEW.x,NEW.y;
END IF;
RETURN NEW;
END;
$BODY$
LANGUAGE plpgsql;
CREATE TRIGGER check_tupel
BEFORE INSERT OR UPDATE ON a
FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE myfunc();
Demo: db<>fiddle
So you need a trigger solution, sounds like a homework problem. The question then becomes do you want to:
abort the entire operation
slightly squash the row but continue the remainder of the operation.
The following does the second: (See demo)
create or replace
function check_b_has_a()
returns trigger
language plpgsql
as $$
begin
if exists
( select null
from b
where (b.x,b.y) =
(new.x, new.y)
)
then
return null;
else
return new;
end if;
end;
$$;
create trigger a_bir
before insert
on a
for each row
execute function check_b_has_a();

PostgreSQL transactional DDL and to_regclass

Following the suggestion at this question, I'm using the to_regclass function to check if a table exists, creating it if it doesn't. However, it appears that if the table was created in the current transaction, to_regclass still returns null.
Is this behaviour expected? Or is this a bug?
Detail
Here's a short example of where this goes wrong:
begin;
create schema test;
create table test.test ( id serial, category integer );
create or replace function test.test_insert () returns trigger as $$
declare
child_table_name text;
table_id text;
begin
child_table_name = concat('test.test_', text(new.category));
table_id = to_regclass(child_table_name::cstring);
if table_id is null then
execute format('create table %I ( primary key (id), check ( category = %L ) ) inherits (test.test)', child_table_name, new.category);
end if;
execute format ('insert into %I values ($1.*)', child_table_name) using new;
return null;
end;
$$ language plpgsql;
create trigger test_insert before insert on test.test for each row execute procedure test.test_insert();
insert into test.test (category) values (1);
insert into test.test (category) values (1);
insert into test.test (category) values (1);
commit;
You're using the %I format specifier incorrectly.
If your category is 1, then you end up calling to_regclass('test.test_1'), i.e. checking for the table test_1 in schema test.
However, format('create table %I', 'test.test_1') will treat the format argument as a single identifier and quote it accordingly, evaluating to 'create table "test.test_1"'. This will create a table called "test.test_1" in your default schema (probably public).
Instead, you need to treat your schema and table names as separate identifiers. Define your table name as:
child_table_name = format('test.%I', 'test_' || new.category);
... and when building your SQL strings, just substitute this value directly (i.e. with %s rather than %I).

Trigger to delete past records in postgresql

I want only to maintain present 1 month records log details. need to delete past record log details.I tried this code however could not work this,
create sequence userseq1;
CREATE TABLE users
( id integer NOT NULL DEFAULT nextval('userseq1'::regclass)
);
INSERT INTO users VALUES(126);
CREATE TABLE History
( userid integer
, createdate timestamp
);
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION recordcreatetime() RETURNS trigger language plpgsql
AS $$
DECLARE
BEGIN
INSERT INTO History values(new.id,NOW() );
RETURN NEW;
END;
$$;
CREATE TRIGGER user_hist
BEFORE INSERT ON users
FOR EACH ROW
EXECUTE procedure recordcreatetime();
However it is working to insert values sequencing one by one adding.I want to delete the previous 1 month record Log details.I tried this below code and it is not working
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION trf_keep_row_number_steady()
RETURNS TRIGGER AS
$body$
DECLARE
BEGIN
IF (SELECT count(createdate) FROM history) > rownum_limit
THEN
DELETE FROM history
WHERE createdate = (SELECT min(createdate) FROM history);
END IF;
END;
$body$
LANGUAGE plpgsql;
CREATE TRIGGER tr_keep_row_number_steady
AFTER INSERT ON history
FOR EACH ROW EXECUTE PROCEDURE trf_keep_row_number_steady();
I can see in your second code block, you have a trigger on history table and you are trying to DELETE FROM history in that same trigger.
Insert / Update / Delete on a table through a trigger on the same table is not allowed. Please think of some other alternative, e.g., running a separate DELETE statement for the required cleanup of rows before or after your main INSERT statement.

PLPGSQL Cascading Triggers?

I am trying to create a trigger, so that when ever I add a new record it adds another record in the same table. The session field will only take values between 1 and 4. So when I add a 1 in session I want it to add another record but with session 3 blocked. But the problem is that it leads to cascading triggers and it inserts itself again and again because the trigger is triggered when inserted.
I have for example a simple table:
CREATE TABLE example
(
id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY
,name VARCHAR(100) NOT NULL
,session INTEGER
,status VARCHAR(100)
);
My trigger function is:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION add_block() RETURNS TRIGGER AS $$
BEGIN
INSERT INTO example VALUES (NEW.id + 1, NEW.name, NEW.session+2, 'blocked');
RETURN NULL;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE 'plpgsql';
Trigger is:
CREATE TRIGGER add_block
AFTER INSERT OR UPDATE
ON example
FOR EACH ROW
EXECUTE PROCEDURE add_block();
I get error:
SQL statement "INSERT INTO example VALUES ( $1 +1, $2 , $3 + 2, $4)"
PL/pgSQL function "add_block" line 37 at SQL statement
This error repeats itself so many times that I can't see the top.
How would I solve this?
EDIT:
CREATE TABLE block_rules
(
id SERIAL PRIMARY KEY
,session INTEGER
,block_session INTEGER
);
This table holds the block rules. So if a new record is inserted into the EXAMPLE table with session 1 then it blocks session 3 accordingly by inserting a new record with blocked status in the same (EXAMPLE) table above (not block_rules). Same for session 2 but it blocks session 4.
The block_rules table holds the rules (or pattern) to block a session by. It holds
id | session | block_session
------------------------------
1 | 1 | 3
2 | 2 | 4
3 | 3 | 2
How would I put that in the WHEN statement of the trigger going with Erwin Branstetter's answer below?
Thanks
New answer to edited question
This trigger function adds blocked sessions according to the information in table block_rules.
I assume that the tables are linked by id - information is missing in the question.
I now assume that the block rules are general rules for all sessions alike and link by session. The trigger is only called for non-blocked sessions and inserts a matching blocked session.
Trigger function:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION add_block()
RETURNS TRIGGER AS
$BODY$
BEGIN
INSERT INTO example (name, session, status)
VALUES (NEW.name
,(SELECT block_session
FROM block_rules
WHERE session = NEW.session)
,'blocked');
RETURN NULL;
END;
$BODY$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
Trigger:
CREATE TRIGGER add_block
AFTER INSERT -- OR UPDATE
ON example
FOR EACH ROW
WHEN (NEW.status IS DISTINCT FROM 'blocked')
EXECUTE PROCEDURE add_block();
Answer to original question
There is still room for improvement. Consider this setup:
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION add_block()
RETURNS TRIGGER AS
$BODY$
BEGIN
INSERT INTO example (name, session, status)
VALUES (NEW.name, NEW.session + 2, 'blocked');
RETURN NULL;
END;
$BODY$ LANGUAGE plpgsql;
CREATE TRIGGER add_block
AFTER INSERT -- OR UPDATE
ON example
FOR EACH ROW
WHEN (NEW.session < 3)
-- WHEN (status IS DISTINCT FROM 'blocked') -- alternative guess at filter
EXECUTE PROCEDURE add_block();
Major points:
For PostgreSQL 9.0 or later you can use a WHEN condition in the trigger definition. This would be most efficient. For older versions you use the same condition inside the trigger function.
There is no need to add a column, if you can define criteria to discern auto-inserted rows. You did not tell, so I assume that only auto-inserted rows have session > 2 in my example. I added an alternative WHEN condition for status = 'blocked' as comment.
You should always provide a column list for INSERTs. If you don't, later changes to the table may have unexpected side effects!
Do not insert NEW.id + 1 in the trigger manually. This won't increment the sequence and the next INSERT will fail with a duplicate key violation.
id is a serial column, so don't do anything. The default nextval() from the sequence is inserted automatically.
Your description only mentions INSERT, yet you have a trigger AFTER INSERT OR UPDATE. I cut out the UPDATE part.
The keyword plpgsql doesn't have to be quoted.
OK so can't you just add another column, something like this:
ALTER TABLE example ADD COLUMN trig INTEGER DEFAULT 0;
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION add_block() RETURNS TRIGGER AS $$
BEGIN
IF NEW.trig = 0 THEN
INSERT INTO example VALUES (NEXTVAL('example_id_seq'::regclass), NEW.name, NEW.session+2, 'blocked', 1);
END IF;
RETURN NULL;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE 'plpgsql';
it's not great, but it works :-)
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION add_block() RETURNS TRIGGER AS $$
BEGIN
SET SESSION session_replication_role = replica;
INSERT INTO example VALUES (NEXTVAL('example_id_seq'::regclass), NEW.name, NEW.session+2, 'blocked');
SET SESSION session_replication_role = origin;
RETURN NULL;
END;
$$ LANGUAGE 'plpgsql';

in postgres, splitting an update between two tables using Rules

attempting to maintain an edit log using rules.
create table t1(
id serial primary key,
c1 text,
... );
create table edit_log(
id int references t1,
editor_id int references users,
edit_ts timestamp default current_timestamp );
with an update, wish to update t1 and insert into edit_lot
update t1 set c1='abc', ... where id=456;
insert into edit_log( id, editor_id, current_timestamp );
this would be a pretty straightforward except for the arbitrary number of columns, eg,
update t1 set c1='abc', c2='def', editor_id=123 where id=456;
update t1 set c3='xyz', editor_id=123 where id=456;
how to write a rule for that?
I think a trigger will serve you better than a rule. Consider this demo.
Test setup
CREATE TEMP TABLE t1(id int, editor_id int, c1 text);
INSERT INTO t1(id, editor_id) VALUES (1,1),(2,2);
CREATE TEMP TABLE edit_log(id int, editor_id int, edit_ts timestamp);
Create trigger function
CREATE OR REPLACE FUNCTION trg_t1_upaft_log()
RETURNS trigger AS
$BODY$
BEGIN
IF OLD IS DISTINCT FROM NEW THEN -- to avoid empty updates
INSERT INTO edit_log(id, editor_id, edit_ts)
VALUES(NEW.id, NEW.editor_id, now()::timestamp);
END IF;
RETURN NULL; -- trigger will be fired AFTER updates, return value is irrelevant.
END;
$BODY$
LANGUAGE plpgsql VOLATILE;
Create trigger
CREATE TRIGGER upaft_log
AFTER UPDATE ON t1
FOR EACH ROW
EXECUTE PROCEDURE trg_t1_upaft_log();
Test
UPDATE t1 SET c1 = 'baz' WHERE id = 1;
SELECT * FROM edit_log; -- 1 new entry
UPDATE t1 SET c1 = 'baz' WHERE id = 1;
SELECT * FROM edit_log; -- no new entry, update changed nothing!
UPDATE t1 SET c1 = 'blarg';
SELECT * FROM edit_log; -- 2 new entries, update changed two rows.
Cleanup
DROP TRIGGER upaft_log ON t1;
DROP FUNCTION trg_t1_upaft_log()
-- Temp. tables will be dropped automatically at end of session.
Comment
It is very hard or plain impossible (depending on the details of your setup) for a rule to figure out which rows are updated.
A trigger AFTER UPDATE can decide after the fact and is the better choice. Also easy to integrate with (most) additional triggers and / or rules in this scenario.