Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> I think I like this best of all the suggestions -
> suppress_redundant_updates_trigger() is what I have now.
> If there's no further discussion, I'll go ahead and commit this in a day
> or two.
The documentation seems a bit lacking: it gives neither a hint of why
you might want to use this nor why it's not the built-in behavior.
Suggest expending a sentence or two pointing out that the trigger takes
nonzero execution time to do its comparisons, and that this may or may
not be repaid by eliminated updates, depending on whether the client
applications are actually in the habit of issuing useless update
commands.
I think you're missing an <indexentry> item for the function name, also.
regards, tom lane