Re: Pgpool-II 4.7.0 released.

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

In response to

Responses

Browse pgpool-general by date

  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.