Re: CLUSTER and MVCC

From: Csaba Nagy <nagy(at)ecircle-ag(dot)com>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
Cc: Gregory Stark <stark(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, postgres hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CLUSTER and MVCC
Date: 2007-03-09 13:15:18
Message-ID: 1173446118.9058.83.camel@coppola.muc.ecircle.de
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

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.

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Simon Riggs 2007-03-09 13:54:58 Re: Auto creation of Partitions
Previous Message Csaba Nagy 2007-03-09 13:13:53 Re: CLUSTER and MVCC