From: | "billy" <billywq(at)163(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: why copy tuple in the end of trigger when nothing changed in NEW OLD record variable |
Date: | 2008-06-11 04:57:15 |
Message-ID: | 484F5B47.0460FE.04501@m12-15.163.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane,
er, your explanation is reasonable.
But at least the comment
if (newtuple != tuple) /* modified by Trigger(s) */
{
.....
is likely to misdirect us.
It took me a few hours to figure it out. :-(
======= 2008-06-10 23:43:00 In your letter you say:=======
>"billy" <billywq(at)163(dot)com> writes:
>> I think we can add some judgment conditions in function plpgsql_exec_trigger() to avoid this problem.
>
>I don't especially see the point of adding extra complexity here.
>AFAICS you are talking about avoiding one or two palloc/pfree
>cycles, which is surely down in the noise compared to the cost of
>calling a plpgsql trigger.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
>--
>Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org)
>To make changes to your subscription:
>http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
billy
billywq(at)163(dot)com
2008-06-11
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2008-06-11 06:52:03 | Re: Overhauling GUCS |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2008-06-11 03:43:03 | Re: why copy tuple in the end of trigger when nothing changed in NEW OLD record variable |