On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@gmail.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?
