On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 2:10 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Alvaro Herrera <alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: >> Tom Lane wrote: >>> ... If the trigger is succeeding (ie, >>> detecting a no-op update) often enough that it would be worth that, >>> you've really got an application-stupidity problem to fix. > >> ISTM the whole point of suppress_redundant_updates_trigger is to cope >> with application stupidity. > > I think it's a suitable band-aid for limited amounts of stupidity. > But it eliminates only a small fraction of the total overhead involved > in a useless update command. So I remain of the opinion that if that's > happening a lot, you're better off fixing the problem somewhere upstream.
At first glance I think I'd rather have it do the correct thing all of the time, even if it takes longer, so that my only trade-off decision is whether to improve performance by fixing the application. Ideally if the input tuple wouldn't require compression we wouldn't bother to decompress the stored tuple. David J. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
