Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nZSIi-0004KJ-NA for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 06:59:29 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nZSIh-0003qs-Ff for pgsql-admin@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 06:59:27 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nZSIg-0003me-Cy for pgsql-admin@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 06:59:27 +0000 Received: from wout1-smtp.messagingengine.com ([64.147.123.24]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1nZSIa-00074O-VH for pgsql-admin@postgresql.org; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 06:59:25 +0000 Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.nyi.internal [10.202.2.41]) by mailout.west.internal (Postfix) with ESMTP id 060BE3201DB0; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 02:59:16 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mailfrontend2 ([10.202.2.163]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Wed, 30 Mar 2022 02:59:17 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= messagingengine.com; h=cc:content-transfer-encoding:content-type :date:date:from:from:in-reply-to:in-reply-to:message-id :mime-version:references:reply-to:sender:subject:subject:to:to :x-me-proxy:x-me-proxy:x-me-sender:x-me-sender:x-sasl-enc; s= fm3; bh=BnhfEhnLaoD6ahLb0fvvsbdzOndmdmzJI/CznvGTt2M=; b=d1Z/Fs0Q 3vRJQ/NcxhbDNCqKl6cfUEc+o8peI09IOrdITMrOvmJcMWBA1QvF+xTdlStZsEdH bWAfoTG/CoAxlFNXsIvFWaD7erBD7eox7a/R2n9QVK7+8HAd44EfLaHkY9WeTTqa ANAq/ztb9w9h9slNuAHE4yBPclb0fqxngZT0PPcohlUWGr6j7ohzcTj/r+mld9eb 2BlCPJ5IgEVN9GJjfpDXxcm/eepi+fK6oDhc8vKE+blgXlrbGT2Atm68mrKtBNjc 8dhY/LsscoB8ljfL6blRD9G/OvxX3a1AO1aDXkwPvp3qkdq/oSL+hPDYabEb8QfQ SwpwL2sZO9JorQ== X-ME-Sender: X-ME-Received: X-ME-Proxy-Cause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgedvvddrudeiuddguddugecutefuodetggdotefrod ftvfcurfhrohhfihhlvgemucfhrghsthforghilhdpqfgfvfdpuffrtefokffrpgfnqfgh necuuegrihhlohhuthemuceftddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhsucdlqddutddtmd enucfjughrpefkffggfgfuvfhfhfgjtgfgsehtjeertddtfeejnecuhfhrohhmpefrvght vghrucfgihhsvghnthhrrghuthcuoehpvghtvghrrdgvihhsvghnthhrrghuthesvghnth gvrhhprhhishgvuggsrdgtohhmqeenucggtffrrghtthgvrhhnpeefjeegheetuefhveev udelueeftdejteeiffetvdduhfdtieefgfeutedtveeggfenucevlhhushhtvghrufhiii gvpedtnecurfgrrhgrmhepmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpehpvghtvghrrdgvihhsvghnthhrrghu thesvghnthgvrhhprhhishgvuggsrdgtohhm X-ME-Proxy: Received: by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTPA; Wed, 30 Mar 2022 02:59:15 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <64c95ef1-925b-adc1-10b7-32cbf27c9432@enterprisedb.com> Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2022 08:59:13 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.15; rv:91.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/91.7.0 Subject: Re: Vacuum behaviour for replicated nodes with pglogical (postgres 10) Content-Language: en-US To: Dirk Krautschick , pgsql-admin References: From: Peter Eisentraut In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk On 24.03.22 09:39, Dirk Krautschick wrote: > should I expect the same vacuum behaviour on both nodes replicated with > pglogical > > if both nodes have the very same autovacuum settings? > > The insert, update, delete do have the same affect on the threshold on > standby side, right? Yes, it should roughly be the same.