"Gauri Kanekar" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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
--
Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-performance
