Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.184])
	by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F4D32E00AD
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@developer.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:22:40 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from developer.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71])
	by localhost (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.184]) (amavisd-maia, port 10024)
	with ESMTP id 26868-08-2
	for <pgsql-performance-postgresql.org@developer.postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:22:24 -0300 (ADT)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.5
Received: from wa-out-1112.google.com (wa-out-1112.google.com
 [209.85.146.182])
	by developer.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 581192E006F
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:11:34 -0300 (ADT)
Received: by wa-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id n7so8592821wag.5
	for <pgsql-performance@postgresql.org>;
	Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	bh=cwUPrxXyKIWXXSS4aqCiViab10W/Cl93VzxCMMNHX0I=;
	b=KpUeImRp31cNVKivaNZp5i6FwmdB8i8yGbQFyOpGFYm3wgTay7heTyhEBPG51ZXoO+/qZBgrUhI0z0tUlzpGoEYmllqLwS0Bo6K4fuh48FsyfOpKVNNvNc5KPyyPjEPIBavlj0NYIYRY5aPwM9N0PMgMg2r+gqCxeS0qoyX+3Jo=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
	h=message-id:date:from:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references;
	b=Hm5bffSjisIZTSKV1u+lBDdszgxI4NEFbBIlVA8NjSRyziOcqV1ipA1fjIVTCP7JL99lrBCWCY+EOOqWyPEbUZSij4M52ZiAMueN2iS/iCN5vLWmG6GqG/ErK+gNxwIjg8TxBx9GRHNmLFtrHJ3F8QS+iDYit3IZP2EIg4Cvhcc=
Received: by 10.114.144.1 with SMTP id r1mr7492048wad.53.1209445893338;
	Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.240.17 with HTTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2008 22:11:33 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <7e4ba9550804282211s5568dc75l557e057fd1c33c2@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Apr 2008 10:41:33 +0530
From: "Gauri Kanekar" <meetgaurikanekar@gmail.com>
To: "Greg Smith" <gsmith@gregsmith.com>
Subject: Re: Replication Syatem
Cc: pgsql-performance@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: <Pine.GSO.4.64.0804290104570.2503@westnet.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative;
	boundary="----=_Part_10463_6957960.1209445893338"
References: <7e4ba9550804280638ie81dc23w472785c83cd38fcf@mail.gmail.com>
	<60wsmh64f6.fsf@dba2.int.libertyrms.com>
	<7e4ba9550804282155u655e3ab5o38d2e659b485530d@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.GSO.4.64.0804290104570.2503@westnet.com>
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=1.9 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL=0.000,
	FS_REPLICA=1.179, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SARE_SPEC_REPLICA=0.72
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Archive-Number: 200804/422
X-Sequence-Number: 29915

------=_Part_10463_6957960.1209445893338
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

But unless we do full vacuum the space is not recovered. Thats y we prefer
full vacuum.

~ Gauri

On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Greg Smith <gsmith@gregsmith.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Gauri Kanekar wrote:
>
>  Basically we have some background process which updates "table1" and we
> > don't want the application to make any changes to "table1" while vacuum.
> > Vacuum requires exclusive lock on "table1" and if any of the background
> > or
> > application is ON vacuum don't kick off.
> >
>
> VACUUM FULL needs an exclusive lock, the regular one does not in 8.1. It's
> one of the reasons FULL should be avoided.  If you do regular VACUUM
> frequently enough, you shouldn't ever need to do a FULL one anyway.
>
>
> --
> * Greg Smith gsmith@gregsmith.com http://www.gregsmith.com Baltimore, MD
>



-- 
Regards
Gauri

------=_Part_10463_6957960.1209445893338
Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

But unless we do full vacuum the space is not recovered. Thats y we prefer full vacuum.<br><br>~ Gauri<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Greg Smith &lt;<a href="mailto:gsmith@gregsmith.com">gsmith@gregsmith.com</a>&gt; wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d">On Tue, 29 Apr 2008, Gauri Kanekar wrote:<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
Basically we have some background process which updates &quot;table1&quot; and we<br>
don&#39;t want the application to make any changes to &quot;table1&quot; while vacuum.<br>
Vacuum requires exclusive lock on &quot;table1&quot; and if any of the background or<br>
application is ON vacuum don&#39;t kick off.<br>
</blockquote>
<br></div>
VACUUM FULL needs an exclusive lock, the regular one does not in 8.1. It&#39;s one of the reasons FULL should be avoided. &nbsp;If you do regular VACUUM frequently enough, you shouldn&#39;t ever need to do a FULL one anyway.<div>
<div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><br>
<br>
--<br>
* Greg Smith <a href="mailto:gsmith@gregsmith.com" target="_blank">gsmith@gregsmith.com</a> <a href="http://www.gregsmith.com" target="_blank">http://www.gregsmith.com</a> Baltimore, MD<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br>Regards<br>Gauri

------=_Part_10463_6957960.1209445893338--