| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Vladimir Rusinov <vrusinov(at)google(dot)com>, Euler Taveira <euler(at)timbira(dot)com(dot)br>, David Steele <david(at)pgmasters(dot)net>, Michael Paquier <michael(dot)paquier(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, Cynthia Shang <cynthia(dot)shang(at)crunchydata(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Rename pg_switch_xlog to pg_switch_wal |
| Date: | 2017-01-17 16:34:41 |
| Message-ID: | 3f342a03-3252-03e7-47ad-9d5d6c3dc22d@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 1/13/17 10:18 AM, Stephen Frost wrote:
> The point I was making was that serious montioring systems would have to
> be changed and I stand by that.
I don't think my monitoring systems are any less serious than yours.
> 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.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Antonin Houska | 2017-01-17 16:37:10 | Re: PoC: Grouped base relation |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2017-01-17 16:27:41 | Re: Re: Clarifying "server starting" messaging in pg_ctl start without --wait |