Peter, * Peter Eisentraut (peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com) 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 PG10." 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. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
