Hi! On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 3:39 AM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > On 2023-03-23 23:24:19 +0300, Alexander Korotkov wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 23, 2023 at 8:06 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > > > I seriously doubt that solving this at the tuple locking level is the > > > right > > > thing. If we want to avoid refetching tuples, why don't we add a > > > parameter to > > > delete/update to generally put the old tuple version into a slot, not > > > just as > > > an optimization for a subsequent lock_tuple()? Then we could remove all > > > refetching tuples for triggers. It'd also provide the basis for adding > > > support > > > for referencing the OLD version in RETURNING, which'd be quite powerful.
After some thoughts, I think I like idea of fetching old tuple version in update/delete. Everything that evades extra tuple fetching and do more of related work in a single table AM call, makes table AM API more flexible. I'm working on patch implementing this. I'm going to post it later today. ------ Regards, Alexander Korotkov
