>
> suppress_redundant_updates_trigger was created precisely because it's
> not always easy to create application code in such a way that it
> generates no redundant updates. However, there is a cost to using it,
> and the break even point can be surprisingly high. It should therefore
> be used with caution, and after appropriate benchmarks.
>
> well, there is a cost of not using it too. If lots of things needs to be
done when a record is stored, and if it doesn´t needed to be stored, all
these things will not be done. So, what are pros of changing a record
which did not changed any value and what are cons of it ? So, I understood
the way it works and yes, my point of view is that this trigger is really
needed, for me, obviously.
