| From: | Tatsuo Ishii <ishii(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | emond(dot)papegaaij(at)gmail(dot)com |
| Cc: | pgpool-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: Pgpool-II 4.7.0 released. |
| Date: | 2026-01-23 10:01:11 |
| Message-ID: | 20260123.190111.984289825765711614.ishii@postgresql.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgpool-general |
>> After thinking more, I feel like it would be overkill to allow to
>> specify multiple IPs for wd_listen_addresses and
>> wd_heartbeat_listen_addresses.
>>
>> If so, we can decide to allow only 1 IP for each parameter and change
>> the names to:
>>
>> wd_listen_address
>> wd_heartbeat_listen_address
>>
>> What do you think?
>
> Yes, that makes sense to me. I don't see any reason to have multiple
> addresses for those. If you do allow multiple addresses, that would
> only be for consistency with the other options, like listen_addresses
> and pcp_listen_addresses. We are going to use '*' anyway, because in a
> docker container that works fine.
Ok.
> For some reason, our configuration file already contains a
> wd_heartbeat_port, which I can't find in the manual. But it even
> contains a comment stating that a change requires a restart, so it
> must have come from somewhere:
>
> wd_heartbeat_port = 9694
> # Port number for receiving heartbeat signal
> # (change requires restart)
wd_heartbeat_port was once in older versions of pgpool.conf,
e.g. v3.3.
Best regards,
--
Tatsuo Ishii
SRA OSS K.K.
English: http://www.sraoss.co.jp/index_en/
Japanese:http://www.sraoss.co.jp
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Emond Papegaaij | 2026-01-23 10:42:19 | Re: Pgpool-II 4.7.0 released. |
| Previous Message | Emond Papegaaij | 2026-01-23 09:02:03 | Re: Pgpool-II 4.7.0 released. |