From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | "Gauri Kanekar" <meetgaurikanekar(at)gmail(dot)com> |
Cc: | "Chris Browne" <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org>, pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: Replication Syatem |
Date: | 2008-04-29 05:20:04 |
Message-ID: | 24887.1209446404@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-performance |
"Gauri Kanekar" <meetgaurikanekar(at)gmail(dot)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
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Gauri Kanekar | 2008-04-29 05:46:57 | Re: Replication Syatem |
Previous Message | Gauri Kanekar | 2008-04-29 05:11:33 | Re: Replication Syatem |