Tom Lane wrote:
> > Isn't that exactly what beginning a transaction and keeping it
> > uncommitted for a long time would do too?
>
> Sure, but then you haven't got a cross-transaction cursor, only a plain
> cursor.
Sorry for being unclear - I wanted to say that this problem obviously
already exists, so there's not a new (conceptual) problem here.
I'm sure you read the second part of my post where I suggested what a
possible solution could look like.
