Craig Ringer <cr...@postnewspapers.com.au> writes:
> 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,
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
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
