Re: Replication Syatem - Mailing list pgsql-performance

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Replication Syatem
Date
Msg-id 24887.1209446404@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Replication Syatem  ("Gauri Kanekar" <meetgaurikanekar@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-performance
"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

pgsql-performance by date:

Previous
From: "Gauri Kanekar"
Date:
Subject: Re: Replication Syatem
Next
From: "Gauri Kanekar"
Date:
Subject: Re: Replication Syatem