Received: from maia.hub.org (maia-3.hub.org [200.46.204.243])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1C23EB5D80B
	for <pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:28:47 -0300 (ADT)
Received: from mail.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.86])
	by maia.hub.org (mx1.hub.org [200.46.204.243]) (amavisd-maia,
	port 10024) with ESMTP id 86593-07 for
	<pgsql-admin-postgresql.org@mail.postgresql.org>;
	Fri, 21 Oct 2011 08:28:41 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.8.0-rc2
Received: from mailout-de.gmx.net (mailout-de.gmx.net [213.165.64.23])
	by mail.postgresql.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 6D363B5DC03
	for <pgsql-admin@postgresql.org>; Fri, 21 Oct 2011 05:28:40 -0300 (ADT)
Received: (qmail invoked by alias); 21 Oct 2011 08:28:38 -0000
Received: from fsgw.f-secure.com (EHLO [10.128.133.18]) [193.110.108.33]
	by mail.gmx.net (mp015) with SMTP; 21 Oct 2011 10:28:38 +0200
X-Authenticated: #495269
X-Provags-ID: V01U2FsdGVkX1+KW6VCDceKr7xLM7fU/Ei2aiEdykdjH0lRSgd042
	K/molnnH9WoSjq
Subject: Re: check_postgres monitor by Bucardo - any opinions?
From: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net>
To: Mark Steben <mark.steben@autorevenue.com>
Cc: pgsql-admin@postgresql.org
In-Reply-To: 
 <CADyzmyxa-066ueXwfu0R+waFNec0mzC=Yy+FGE5Q6dqhOYg6sg@mail.gmail.com>
References: 
 <CADyzmyxa-066ueXwfu0R+waFNec0mzC=Yy+FGE5Q6dqhOYg6sg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2011 11:28:37 +0300
Message-ID: <1319185717.17908.2.camel@fsopti579.F-Secure.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Y-GMX-Trusted: 0
X-Virus-Scanned: Maia Mailguard 1.0.1
X-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.403 tagged_above=-10 required=5
	tests=BAYES_00=-1.9, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001,
	RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.504
X-Spam-Level: 
X-Archive-Number: 201110/101
X-Sequence-Number: 38553

On tor, 2011-10-20 at 14:16 -0400, Mark Steben wrote:
> Hi all,
> I'm evaluating the check_postgres program.  We are running postgres
> 8.3.
> Does anybody have any experience with this monitoring software they
> would
> like to share?  I'm specifically interested in the 'postgres_bloat'
> program but
> would welcome any comments about anything germaine to check_postgres.

It's a nice tool, but it has lots of bugs, and a new release usually
fixes 3 and introduces 2 new ones.  So I'm a little careful about
upgrading.