On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> Seems like in "suppress_redundant_updates_trigger" we are comparing >> toasted tuple with the new tuple and that is the cause of the bug. > > I don't think it's a bug, I think it's an intentional design tradeoff. > To suppress an update in this case, the trigger would have to grovel > through the individual fields and detoast them before comparing. > That would add a lot of cycles, and only seldom add successes. > > Possibly we should adjust the documentation so that it doesn't imply > that this trigger guarantees to suppress every no-op update.
That doesn't sound like a very plausible argument to me. I don't think that a proposal to add a function named sometimes_suppress_redundant_updates_trigger() would've attracted many votes. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
