To: "Gauri Kanekar" <meetgaurikanekar@gmail.com>
cc: "Chris Browne" <cbbrowne@acm.org>, pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Replication Syatem 
In-reply-to: <7e4ba9550804282155u655e3ab5o38d2e659b485530d@mail.gmail.com> 
References: <7e4ba9550804280638ie81dc23w472785c83cd38fcf@mail.gmail.com>
	<60wsmh64f6.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
	<7e4ba9550804282155u655e3ab5o38d2e659b485530d@mail.gmail.com>
Comments: In-reply-to "Gauri Kanekar" <meetgaurikanekar@gmail.com>
	message dated "Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:25:10 +0530"
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 01:20:04 -0400
Message-ID: <24887.1209446404@sss.pgh.pa.us>
From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>

"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