Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: minimal update

From: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net>
To: Kenneth Marshall <ktm(at)rice(dot)edu>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com>, Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>, Gurjeet Singh <singh(dot)gurjeet(at)gmail(dot)com>, Michael Glaesemann <grzm(at)seespotcode(dot)net>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: minimal update
Date: 2008-10-29 19:31:09
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Kenneth Marshall wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 06:05:26PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Simon Riggs <simon(at)2ndQuadrant(dot)com> writes:
>>>> On Wed, Oct 22, 2008 at 3:24 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>>>>> "Minimal" really fails to convey the point here IMHO.  How about
>>>>> something like "suppress_no_op_updates_trigger"?
>>> I think it means something to us, but "no op" is a very technical phrase
>>> that probably doesn't travel very well.
>> Agreed --- I was hoping someone could improve on that part.  The only
>> other words I could come up with were "empty" and "useless", neither of
>> which seem quite le mot juste ...
>> 			regards, tom lane
> redundant?

I think I like this best of all the suggestions - 
suppress_redundant_updates_trigger() is what I have now.

If there's no further discussion, I'll go ahead and commit this in a day 
or two.



Attachment: min-update-2.patch
Description: text/x-patch (15.4 KB)

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Alvaro HerreraDate: 2008-10-29 19:32:18
Subject: Re: autovacuum: I need some explanation
Previous:From: Noah FreireDate: 2008-10-29 19:26:18
Subject: Re: autovacuum: I need some explanation

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group