On Tue, Oct 14, 2008 at 6:47 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > "Scott Marlowe" <scott.marlowe@xxxxxxxxx> 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? -- Sent via pgsql-general mailing list (pgsql-general@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-general
