Also consider on update triggers that you could want to run anyway
--
dim
Le 25 juin 2009 à 07:45, Craig Ringer <craig@postnewspapers.com.au> a
écrit :
> On Wed, 2009-06-24 at 21:03 -0700, Chris St Denis wrote:
>> This sounds like something that should just be on by default, not a
>> trigger. Is there some reason it would waste the io of writing a
>> new row
>> to disk if nothing has changed? or is it just considered too much
>> unnecessary overhead to compare them?
>
> I think the theory is that carefully written applications generally do
> not generate redundant updates in the first place. An application that
> avoids redundant updates should not have to pay the cost of redundant
> update detection and elimination.
>
> --
> Craig Ringer
>
