| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> |
| Cc: | Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)gmail(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Streaming replication and postmaster signaling |
| Date: | 2010-01-06 16:58:08 |
| Message-ID: | 12346.1262797088@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Craig Ringer <craig(at)postnewspapers(dot)com(dot)au> writes:
> Fujii Masao wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
>> <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com> wrote:
>>> This was probably discussed to death earlier, but: why was it decided to
>>> not simply use a different port for listening for walsender
>>> connections?
>>
>> I believe that using a different port would make the setup
>> of replication messier; look for the unused port number,
>> open that port for replication in the firewall, etc.
> Actually, being able to firewall walsender traffic separately might be
> rather handy.
> Having to assign a different port wouldn't be fun for packagers, though,
Well, we'd have to get a port number officially assigned by IANA.
I tend to agree that the management overhead of a second port isn't
worth it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Fetter | 2010-01-06 17:06:48 | Re: Auto-extending table partitions? |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2010-01-06 16:54:36 | Re: Type modifiers for DOMAIN |