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
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 7: You can help support the PostgreSQL project by donating at
http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
