From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com>
cc: "David G. Johnston" <david.g.johnston@gmail.com>,
        Pgsql-admin <pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: update behavior
In-reply-to: <58598CFA-7C0F-4629-9D54-C366CEC8CCB4@elevated-dev.com>
References: <75F792AF-58DF-4559-A2E8-C89060D1E94E@elevated-dev.com>
 <CAKFQuwbwAbbk6KUKXyX2VxpX3aUDhS5Zd__2JKQXdhH5zHaB4g@mail.gmail.com>
 <BE13CDCE-A689-4627-9B7F-572765CD9FBB@elevated-dev.com>
 <0D31EA2C-9038-4C2D-A4CD-E602809F16CC@elevated-dev.com>
 <58598CFA-7C0F-4629-9D54-C366CEC8CCB4@elevated-dev.com>
Comments: In-reply-to Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com>
	message dated "Thu, 19 Jun 2025 11:48:30 -0600"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-ID: <1483327.1750357769.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Date: Thu, 19 Jun 2025 14:29:29 -0400
Message-ID: <1483328.1750357769@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1483328.1750357769%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-dev.com> writes:
> On Jun 19, 2025, at 11:39=E2=80=AFAM, Scott Ribe <scott_ribe@elevated-de=
v.com> wrote:
>> Wait, should suppress_redundant_updates_trigger be used even in this ca=
se? Would it suppress the update before the constraint checks and invocati=
on of the ON CONFLICT clause???

> Or no, duh, this starts with an INSERT where that won't be run, there is=
 no UPDATE until after the constraint violation, but then at that point it=
 would suppress the update?

I believe we fire ON UPDATE triggers when an INSERT ON CONFLICT
takes an UPDATE action, so it should do what you want.  The
overhead tradeoff is yours to make.

			regards, tom lane