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.