The world rejoiced as [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Lane) wrote: > Lukas Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> Jochem van Dieten wrote: >>> make the session handler smarter? And if you can't do that, put some >>> logic in the session table that turns an update without changes into a >>> no-op? > >> err isnt that one the job of the database? > > No. That idea has been suggested and rejected before. Detecting > that an UPDATE is a no-op would require a significant number of > cycles, and in most applications, most or all of the time those > cycles would be wasted effort. If you have a need for this > behavior, you can attach a BEFORE UPDATE trigger to a table that > checks for all-fields-the-same and suppresses the update. I don't > think that should be automatic though.
If this be handled via a stored procedure, the stored proc could hide this detail nice and completely... select store_session(a,b,c,d,e); store_session can be quite smart enough to not bother doing spurious updates. -- select 'cbbrowne' || '@' || 'linuxfinances.info'; http://linuxdatabases.info/info/x.html Rules of the Evil Overlord #29. "I will dress in bright and cheery colors, and so throw my enemies into confusion." <http://www.eviloverlord.com/> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 6: explain analyze is your friend
