Re: The suppress_redundant_updates_trigger() works incorrectly

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
Cc: KaiGai Kohei <kaigai(at)ak(dot)jp(dot)nec(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: The suppress_redundant_updates_trigger() works incorrectly
Date: 2008-11-05 18:41:44
Message-ID: 972.1225910504@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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 ...

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2008-11-05 18:50:20 Re: The suppress_redundant_updates_trigger() works incorrectly
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2008-11-05 18:39:01 Re: The suppress_redundant_updates_trigger() works incorrectly