Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2026 19:01:11 +0900 (JST)
Message-Id: <20260123.190111.984289825765711614.ishii@postgresql.org>
To: emond.papegaaij@gmail.com
Cc: pgpool-general@lists.postgresql.org
Subject: Re: Pgpool-II 4.7.0 released.
From: Tatsuo Ishii <ishii@postgresql.org>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAGXsc+a7d+EMDL0nqDVKch8OjCxQPK1o9Asu88M25bkS4VwXGA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20260123.133510.1195841695338539350.ishii@postgresql.org>
	<20260123.162526.1291014725918553616.ishii@postgresql.org>
	<CAGXsc+a7d+EMDL0nqDVKch8OjCxQPK1o9Asu88M25bkS4VwXGA@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20260123.190111.984289825765711614.ishii%40postgresql.org>
Precedence: bulk

>> 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