From: | "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | "Tom Lane" <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | "Laurent Wandrebeck" <l(dot)wandrebeck(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Column level triggers |
Date: | 2008-10-15 05:26:55 |
Message-ID: | dcc563d10810142226k5b981956sa79be9183927c50c@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-general pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> "Scott Marlowe" <scott(dot)marlowe(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
>> Since you can check which columns have changed, it's pretty easy to
>> write a trigger that just skips its logic when none of the trigger
>> columns have changed.
>
> ... which is pretty much the same thing a built-in implementation would
> have to do, too. So it'd save you a bit of typing but nothing more.
Well, I'd assume that a built in solution would be doing the short
circuiting in C which would make plpgsql based triggers fire less
often, so I'd expect there to be some small performance gain. But if
you write triggers in C I'm guessing there wouldn't be much of one
then, right?
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | gorsa | 2008-10-15 05:33:14 | Re: how to get unique identifier for a client |
Previous Message | Artacus | 2008-10-15 04:45:06 | Re: Update with a Repeating Sequence |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Simon Riggs | 2008-10-15 07:29:21 | Re: CLUSTER, REINDEX, VACUUM in "read only" transaction? |
Previous Message | ITAGAKI Takahiro | 2008-10-15 04:28:27 | Annoying error messages in _dosmaperr |