Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> 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. You'd be wrong. The entire point of this trigger is to save cycles, so having it eat a lot of cycles only to fail is not an improvement. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers