From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Gauri Kanekar <meetgaurikanekar@gmail.com>
Cc: Chris Browne <cbbrowne@acm.org>
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Replication Syatem
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:20:04 -0400
Message-ID: <24887.1209446404@sss.pgh.pa.us> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7e4ba9550804282155u655e3ab5o38d2e659b485530d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7e4ba9550804280638ie81dc23w472785c83cd38fcf@mail.gmail.com>
<60wsmh64f6.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
<7e4ba9550804282155u655e3ab5o38d2e659b485530d@mail.gmail.com>
"Gauri Kanekar" <meetgaurikanekar@gmail.com> writes:
> Vacuum requires exclusive lock on "table1" and if any of the background or
> application is ON vacuum don't kick off. Thats the reason we need to get the
> site down.
As has been pointed out to you repeatedly, "vacuum" hasn't required
exclusive lock since the stone age. If you are actually running a PG
version in which plain "vacuum" takes exclusive lock, then no amount
of replication will save you --- in particular, because no currently
supported replication solution even works with PG servers that old.
Otherwise, the answer is not so much "replicate" as "stop using
vacuum full, and instead adopt a modern vacuuming strategy".
I am not sure how much more clear we can make this to you.
Replication isn't going to solve your vacuum mismanagement problem.
regards, tom lane
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Reply to all the recipients using the --to and --cc options:
reply via email
To: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Cc: tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us, meetgaurikanekar@gmail.com, cbbrowne@acm.org
Subject: Re: Replication Syatem
In-Reply-To: <24887.1209446404@sss.pgh.pa.us>
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
This inbox is served by DDX for PostgreSQL; see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox