[OPEN-ILS-DEV] Removing records

[Grant Johnson]

Thanks Don,

Almost there.
Can you verify that 

asset.call_number.record = biblio.record_entry.id  ?
-- 

F. Grant Johnson
  Systems Coordinator
  Robertson Library
  University of Prince Edward Island

>>> On 2008/10/17 at 4:08 PM, in message <48F8E2BE.8040309 at esilibrary.com>, Don
McMorris <dmcmorris at esilibrary.com> wrote:
> I think you have the 'delete some records' and 'set record' lines
> backwards... The foreign key constraint will prevent the deletion of
> b.re if any a.call_numbers's point to them...
> 
> so, something like
> BEGIN;
> DROP RULE protect_bib_rec_delete ON biblio.record_entry;
> UPDATE asset.call_number SET record='-1' WHERE record IN ([bib IDs]);
> DELETE FROM biblio.record_entry WHERE id IN ([bib IDs]);
> CREATE RULE protect_bib_rec_delete AS ON DELETE TO biblio.record_entry
> DO INSTEAD UPDATE biblio.record_entry SET deleted = TRUE WHERE OLD.id =
> biblio.record_entry.id;
> COMMIT;
> 
> 
> 
> --Don
> 
> Grant Johnson wrote:
>> Okay -
>> 
>> '-1 instead of the records' should be '-1 instead on the records' right?
>> 
>> So in your scenario:
>> 
>> BEGIN;
>>  DROP RULE protect_bib_rec_delete ON biblio.record_entry;
>> --
>> -- ... delete some records ...
>> -- ... set record in asset.call_number to -1 for each call number.
>> --
>> CREATE RULE protect_bib_rec_delete AS ON DELETE TO biblio.record_entry
>> DO INSTEAD UPDATE biblio.record_entry SET deleted = TRUE WHERE OLD.id
>> = biblio.
>> record_entry.id;
>> COMMIT;
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>>> On 2008/10/17 at 12:11 PM, in message
>> <b918cf3d0810170811u10a2c8f1kdce8b03dd968c11a at mail.gmail.com>, "Mike Rylander"
>> <mrylander at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Fri, Oct 17, 2008 at 8:30 AM, Grant Johnson <fgjohnson at upei.ca> wrote:
>>>> Thanks Mike.
>>>>
>>>> That's easy then.
>>>> Bear with me...
>>>>
>>>> What happens to rows in other tables?
>>>> - The "label" field will match in asset.call_number is the call number
>>>> - asset.copy contains the barcode
>>> Actually, asset.call_number and asset.copy will stop the delete
>>> (foreign keys).  They are both similarly protected from deletes, so it
>>> would be best to update the record field on asset.call_number, setting
>>> it to -1 instead of the records you're attempting to delete.
>>>
>>>> - metabib.full has marc field info. (Is this index that will get rebuilt?)
>>> This table, and others like it, will get a cascading delete.
>>>
>>> --miker
>>>
>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> F. Grant Johnson
>>>>  Systems Coordinator
>>>>  Robertson Library
>>>>  University of Prince Edward Island
>>>>
>>>>>>> On 2008/10/16 at 9:04 PM, in message
>>>> <b918cf3d0810161704v491368a4ob01d247308c3c198 at mail.gmail.com>, "Mike Rylander"
>>>> <mrylander at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 16, 2008 at 2:27 PM, Grant Johnson <fgjohnson at upei.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> I take it that it is not as easy as deleting rows from the
>>>>> biblio.record_entry table!?!
>>>>>
>>>>> It is that easy.  However, to /really/ delete them you'll need to drop
>>>>> (and later reapply) the rule protecting against true deletes on that
>>>>> table:
>>>>>
>>>>> BEGIN;
>>>>> DROP RULE protect_bib_rec_delete ON biblio.record_entry;
>>>>> --
>>>>> -- ... delete some records ...
>>>>> --
>>>>> CREATE RULE protect_bib_rec_delete AS ON DELETE TO biblio.record_entry
>>>>> DO INSTEAD UPDATE biblio.record_entry SET deleted = TRUE WHERE OLD.id
>>>>> = biblio.
>>>>> record_entry.id;
>>>>> COMMIT;
>>>>
>>>
>> 
>