On Friday 04 March 2005 14:17, Christopher Browne wrote:
> Jan Wieck <JanWieck at Yahoo.com> writes:
> > On 3/4/2005 4:46 PM, Josh Berkus wrote:
> >> Chris, Christian,
> >>
> >>> > That table will presumably need a VACUUM FULL when you get a chance.
> >>> > (That will slow replication while it's running, but shouldn't have
> >>> > much impact on users; it doesn't block inserts into replicated
> >>> > tables...)
> >>>
> >>> Will try, but I'm afraid that something is still blocking on the table.
> >>>
> >>> BTW, what process is it that requires an ExclusiveLock on pg_listener?
> >>
> >> OK, successive VACUUMs took care of it; I just had to VACUUM around
> >> the timing of Slony locking pg_listener.
> >> Obviously we need to vacuum the Slony schema a lot more frequently
> >> ....
> >
> > normally slony does vacuum it's own tables quite frequently. I think
> > in the 1.0 versions vacuuming of pg_listener was forgotten though.
>
> pg_listener was not present in 1.0.2; it was added in 1.0.[3-5].

pg_listener, that's a system catalog not at all related to the slony schema.