No, that's the way to go unless you move the hold to the parent record since
you are saying that all child records should have the same status as a
group.
Jim
"contrapositive" <contrapositive_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:brffbm$2ovpn$1_at_ID-149469.news.uni-berlin.de...
> Two tables, ORDERS and DETAIL_LINES:
>
> ORDERS.order_id
> ORDERS.cust_id
> ORDERS.order_status, etc...
>
> DETAIL_LINES.order_id
> DETAIL_LINES.line_id
> DETAIL_LINES.line_status, etc...
>
> An order has one or more detail lines.
>
> We want an update trigger (for each row) on DETAIL_LINES that says if this
> line_status is being changed to HOLD, then all the other lines for this
> order should change to HOLD. Obviously, that means we're attempting to
> update the table that's being triggered, and the "mutating table" error is
> raised.
>
> I've seen the three triggers and a package approach to this, and I'm ready
> to implement it, but I can't help but think there's some (simpler)
solution
> that I'm overlooking.
>
> Any ideas?
>
> Thanks.
>
> -jk
>
>
Received on Sat Dec 13 2003 - 11:46:20 CST
