Re: The suppress_redundant_updates_trigger() works incorrectly

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>   
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>     
>>> ... however, it seems reasonable to assume that the *new* tuple is just
>>> local storage.  Why don't you just poke the old tuple's OID into the new
>>> one before comparing?
>>>       
>
>   
>> OK, that will be easy enough. I assume I should still put InvalidOid 
>> back again afterwards, in case someone downstream relies on it.
>>     
>
> Can't imagine what ...
>
>             
>   

OK, left off - anything for speed.

fix committed.

cheers

andrew