| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> |
| Cc: | David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: minimal update |
| Date: | 2007-11-02 17:29:02 |
| Message-ID: | 11736.1194024542@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> A BEFORE UPDATE trigger would be better, and probably hardly more
>> expensive than a wired-in facility (especially if you were willing to
>> write it in C).
> Yes. I also prefer the trigger idea to a rule because triggers are easy
> to enable and disable. It's still a lot of work for what must be a
> common want, though. Could it be done generically?
Well, you could write the trigger in C and it'd work for any table.
I think it could be as simple as a memcmp of the tuples' data areas,
since we now require padding bytes to be 0 ...
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Joshua D. Drake | 2007-11-02 17:42:18 | Test lab |
| Previous Message | ohp | 2007-11-02 17:26:35 | should I worry? |