Basically we have some background process which updates "table1" and we
don't want the application to make any changes to "table1" while vacuum.
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
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 3:13 AM, Chris Browne <cbbrowne(at)acm(dot)org> wrote:
> meetgaurikanekar(at)gmail(dot)com ("Gauri Kanekar") writes:
> > We have a table "table1" which get insert and updates daily in high
> > numbers, bcoz of which its size is increasing and we have to vacuum
> > it every alternate day. Vacuuming "table1" take almost 30min and
> > during that time the site is down. We need to cut down on this
> > downtime.So thought of having a replication system, for which the
> > replicated DB will be up during the master is getting vacuumed. Can
> > anybody guide which will be the best suited replication solution for
> > this.
> The only reason that it would be necessary for VACUUM to "take the
> site down" would be if you are running version 7.1, which was
> obsoleted in 2002, which, it should be noted, was SIX YEARS AGO.
> As has been noted, you seem to be presupposing a remarkably complex
> solution to resolve a problem which is likely to be better handled via
> running VACUUM rather more frequently.
> output = reverse("ofni.sesabatadxunil" "@" "enworbbc")
> Rules of the Evil Overlord #181. "I will decree that all hay be
> shipped in tightly-packed bales. Any wagonload of loose hay attempting
> to pass through a checkpoint will be set on fire."
> Sent via pgsql-performance mailing list (pgsql-performance(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
In response to
pgsql-performance by date
|Next:||From: Greg Smith||Date: 2008-04-29 05:08:09|
|Subject: Re: Replication Syatem|
|Previous:||From: Jonah H. Harris||Date: 2008-04-29 03:31:11|
|Subject: Re: Best practice to load a huge table from ORACLE to PG|