On Fri, Nov 19, 2021 at 10:03 AM Marcos Pegoraro <mar...@f10.com.br> wrote:
> Because it takes resources to determine that nothing changed. If you want >> to opt-in into that there is even an extension trigger that makes doing so >> fairly simple. But it's off by default because the typical case is that >> people don't frequently perform no-op updates so why eat the expense. >> > But it takes resources for other operations, right ? > I think this is not unusual. If an user double click on a grid, just sees > a record and clicks ok to save, probably that application calls an update > instead of seeing if some field were changed before that. > > This has been the documented behavior for decades. I suggest you research prior discussions on the topic if you need more than what has been provided. You'd need to bring up some novel points about why a change here would be overall beneficial to get any interest, at least from me, in discussing the topic further. I get the idea of letting the server centralize logic like this - but frankly if the application is choosing to send all that data across the wire just to have the server throw it away the application is wasting network I/O. If it does manage its resources carefully then the server will never even see an update and its behavior here becomes moot. David J.
