On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 14:39 +0300, Peter Eisentraut wrote: > On Fri, 2009-10-16 at 09:31 +0100, Simon Riggs wrote: > > * It will reduce size of in-memory pending trigger list (for large > > statements) > > But this won't be the outcome when it's implemented the way it is being > proposed, which checks the where clause just before executing the > trigger function.
Thanks for pointing that out. I'm giving reasons why we'd want a WHEN clause. If the current implementation doesn't do all that it could, then ISTM thats a reason to reject patch for now, but not for all time. Incidentally, re-accessing a data block at end of statement may have caused to block to fall out of cache and then be re-accessed again. So optimising that away can save on I/O as well. -- Simon Riggs www.2ndQuadrant.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
