| From: | Adam Hooper <adam(at)adamhooper(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: VACUUM FULL pg_largeobject without (much) downtime? |
| Date: | 2015-02-03 19:48:17 |
| Message-ID: | CAMWjz6ENx37psJiAD1Qw4pB=SoJDzPnk00m7d4PA5D_Ff1nEHA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Bill Moran <wmoran(at)potentialtech(dot)com> wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2015 14:17:03 -0500
> Adam Hooper <adam(at)adamhooper(dot)com> wrote:
>
> My recommendation here would be to use Slony to replicate the data to a
> new server, then switch to the new server once the data has synchornized.
Looks exciting. But then I notice: "Slony-I does not automatically
replicate changes to large objects (BLOBS)." [1]
Does that still apply?
It's doable for us to VACUUM FULL and add a notice to our website
saying, "you can't upload files for the next two hours." Maybe that's
a better idea?
Enjoy life,
adam
[1] http://slony.info/documentation/2.2/limitations.html
--
Adam Hooper
+1-613-986-3339
http://adamhooper.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bill Moran | 2015-02-03 20:12:47 | Re: VACUUM FULL pg_largeobject without (much) downtime? |
| Previous Message | Bill Moran | 2015-02-03 19:29:34 | Re: VACUUM FULL pg_largeobject without (much) downtime? |