Csaba Nagy wrote:
> On Fri, 2007-03-09 at 14:00, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>> But I'm not really seeing the problem here. Why isn't Csaba's problem
>> fixed by the fact that HOT reduces the number of dead tuples in the
>> first place? If it does, then he no longer needs the CLUSTER
>> workaround, or at least, he needs it to a much lesser extent.
>
> Is this actually true in the case of HOT + long running transactions ? I
> was supposing HOT has the same problems in the presence of long running
> transactions...
It does, HOT won't help you here. A long-running transaction is just as
much of a problem with HOT as without. Besides, I don't recall that
you're doing updates in the first place.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
