Re: Compressing the AFTER TRIGGER queue

Dean Rasheed <dean.a.rasheed@gmail.com> writes:
> OK, so I should split this into 2 patches?
> Even without the compression, it's probably worth the 16 -> 10 byte
> reduction that would result from removing the 2nd CTID in the UPDATE
> case, and that part would be a pretty small patch.

Yeah, my point exactly.  The rest of it might or might not be worth the
extra complication.
        regards, tom lane