Re: TRICKY TRIGGER QUESTION

In article <33EFF410.1739_at_tiac.net>, "Summit International, Inc." <summ_at_tiac.net> writes:
> Pablo Sanchez wrote:
> >
> > In article <870965629.3791_at_dejanews.com>, sprajapa_at_fmrco.com writes:
> > >
> > > I need to capture primary key changes. Let's say, my update statement
> > > changes primary key of 10 rows (assumeing primary key as int, values
> > > 1, 2, 3...10 and new values are 1101, 1102, 1103, ... 1110), then I want
> >
> > Doesn't it sound intrinsically wrong to be changing a primary key?
> > If yur changing it, it ain't primary.
>
> Hummm, I didn't expect such reply from you, Pablo, Let's call it "key to
> identify existing row at given moment" instead of "primary key", now do
> we have solution ?

Perhaps the tone was off... my apologies if it sounded insolent... anyway, the answer is yes, now we have a solution because the primary key will not change... the other keys may change but the primary key will not, therefore you'll be able to join across the deleted and inserted tables.

--
Pablo Sanchez | wk: 415.933.3812| pg: 800.930.5635 -or- pablo_p_at_pager.sgi.com
--------------+-----------------+--------------------------------------------
pablo_at_sgi.com ... when mailing me, place "not spam" in the Subject