[check_postgres] RFC: New Actions

[David E. Wheeler]

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