* Peter Eisentraut ( wrote:
> On 1/13/17 10:18 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > Certainly, check_postgres is going to have to be changed to address this
> > and, unsurprisingly, it's already had to address a variety of major
> > version differences that have been introduced over the years.
> check_postgres will not need to be changed except for the actions that
> check the disk, which you don't need unless you are using archiving.

That isn't really the point though, is it?  check_postgres will need to
be changed because there are actions which check the pg_xlog directory.
That'll cause a new release, which will be the "release that works with

Perhaps if you're following along with -hackers and know how
check_postgres works then you'll realize that you might not *have* to
upgrade your check_postgres installation if only the directory is
changed and nothing else is, but I've got a pretty hard time seeing that
as a very common user use-case.

The implication here seems to be that because the older version of
check_postgres might appear to continue working for *some* set of
actions (but not all) that we should encouarge users to keep using that
older version with PG10.  That doesn't make any sense to me and I
certainly don't agree with it.



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply via email to