Re: Making AFTER triggers act properly in PL functions

Stephan Szabo <sszabo(at)megazone(dot)bigpanda(dot)com> writes:
> Definately. The ~20 byte/row gain for large updates/insert/delete is
> worth it. I think it'd actually increase the size for the single row case
> since we'd have the pointer to deal with (we could use a flag that tells
> us whether this item actually has a pointer to a shared status structure
> or just contains the status structure but that seems kinda ugly).

Yeah. I can't see that anyone will care about another few bytes in
single-row cases --- the other per-query overheads will swamp this one.
The only cases we've ever heard complaints about are this-query-updated-
umpteen-zillion rows cases, and they were always umpteen zillion cases
of the same trigger.

regards, tom lane