Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> ... however, it seems reasonable to assume that the *new* tuple is just
>>> local storage. Why don't you just poke the old tuple's OID into the new
>>> one before comparing?
>>>
>
>
>> OK, that will be easy enough. I assume I should still put InvalidOid
>> back again afterwards, in case someone downstream relies on it.
>>
>
> Can't imagine what ...
>
>
>
OK, left off - anything for speed.
fix committed.
cheers
andrew