[check_postgres] RFC: New Actions
David E. Wheeler
david.wheeler at pgexperts.com
Tue Jan 18 23:15:55 UTC 2011
On Jan 17, 2011, at 1:05 PM, Greg Sabino Mullane wrote:
>> Ah, yeah, good thinking. Since --warning and --critical are times,
>> perhaps add --warning-count and --critical-count for the numbers? So
>
> Maybe a better name, one that doesn't share the first letters with
> existing names? Getopt::Long is going to barf on --warn and --crit
> where it did not before.
Oh, wasn't aware of that feature. Erm, how about --and-critical --and-warning?
> You can probably just leave those out, our French translators are
> quite good about getting things quickly. The convention is to copy the
> English strings to the French section but leave them with no whitespace
> at the front.
Okay, will do.
>> One other thing we wanted to do was to refine the bloat check query.
>> Right now it's an either/or situation, which can result in a lot of
>> false positives. So what we'd like to be able to do is to specify
>> *both* a minimum bloat size *and* a percentage. Thoughts?
>
> Yeah, that should be doable: similar in spirit to the existing
> vac threshhold checks inside Postgres (but without the way-too-long
> names :)
>
> I'm been working on the bloat check recently, so some future verision
> will have a much better algorithm which will also reduce false
> positives. /aside
Oh, that's good, we'll check it out.
Best,
David
More information about the Check_postgres
mailing list