Re: CLUSTER and MVCC

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...

Cheers,
Csaba.