Re: Pgpool-II 4.7.0 released.

> Op wo 31 dec 2025 om 08:57 schreef Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org>:
>> >> Unfortunately it's not possible to bind on all IP addresses for pgpool
>> >> by tweaking hostnameN. You could specify it to '*' so that it binds on
>> >> all IP addresses, but this will cause a different problem:
>> >> communicating to other watchdog is refused. This is because each
>> >> watchdog node name is created from hostnameN. If hostnameN is '*', the
>> >> node name will be something like "*:5432 Linux..." which is different
>> >> from what other watchdog nodes expect (they expect something like
>> >> '172.29.30.1:5432 ...").
>> >
>> > I already suspected this. The same goes for using the actual docker
>> > container ip, which is 172.29.29.107 on all 3 nodes. I think the best
>> > solution would be to introduce a bind_address configuration parameter,
>> > which defaults to hostnameN, but can be overridden. I guess the same
>> > thing goes for heartbeat_hostnameN.
>>
>> Yeah, I thought the same. I will discuss with other developers next
>> year.
>>
>> >> Since most pgpool developers are off for New Year's holiday, I will
>> >> discuss them next week.
>
> Do you have an update on this already?

I and Pengbo are discussing this off list. We are leaning towards
adding "listen_addresses" like parameters as other parameters prefers
"listen" over "bind" ("listen_addresses" and "pcp_listen_addresses").

We are thinking to add:
wd_listen_addresses0=''
heartbeat_listen_addresses0=''
:
:

because watchdog and hearbeat needs separate listen addresses
parameter. So if we would add these parameters, users will need to
configure number_of_watchdog_nodes * 2 parameters, which will be a
pain.

One way to mitigate this is, to consider default values for these
parameters if they are not specified. There are two candidate for the
default value.

(1) "*"

This is similar to the pre-4.7 behavior, but less secure.

(2) same as hostname0 (for wd_listen_addresses0) and
heartbeat_hostname0 (for heartbeat_hostname0).

This is current 4.7 behavior and more secure but does not work for
your environment.

What do you think?

Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp