Re: The suppress_redundant_updates_trigger() works incorrectly

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 ...
        regards, tom lane