"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