From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
cc: petermpallesen@gmail.com, pgsql-docs@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Not using suppress_redundant_updates_trigger in
 sql-createtrigger.html#examples
In-reply-to: <20200616103644.GE31175@momjian.us>
References: <159195294959.673.5752624528747900508@wrigleys.postgresql.org>
 <20200616103644.GE31175@momjian.us>
Comments: In-reply-to Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us>
	message dated "Tue, 16 Jun 2020 06:36:44 -0400"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1300919.1592316494.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 2020 10:08:14 -0400
Message-ID: <1300920.1592316494@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> writes:
> I have created the attached patch to mention
> suppress_redundant_updates_trigger() in this case.  I don't think having
> an actual example is warranted.

I don't like this patch, because in fact
suppress_redundant_updates_trigger is entirely unrelated to the stated
purpose of that example (namely, to log something if the table was
changed).  The way you've written it makes it sound like
suppress_redundant_updates_trigger could be used as an alternative
implementation of that requirement.

If you want to mention suppress_redundant_updates_trigger somewhere
in this area, that's fine, but it should be treated as an independent
topic rather than being wedged into the middle of an unrelated example.
Maybe a distinct para saying something like "To suppress no-op updates
of a table, see suppress_redundant_updates_trigger." (and making that
an actual link would be a good idea).

			regards, tom lane