Fujii Masao wrote: > On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera > <alvhe...@commandprompt.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, especially those (like the Debian-derived Linux distros) who already try to support more than one Pg version installed in parallel. -- Craig Ringer -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
