[pgpool-hackers: 1292] Re: changing the pcp_watchdog_info

[Yugo Nagata]

Hi Usama,

On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 23:41:53 +0500
Muhammad Usama <m.usama at gmail.com> wrote:

> > To be frank, I'm not sure it is good idea to use ID=0 to stand for local
> > watchdog, because the ID of Nth remote pgpool (other_pgpool_hostnameN in
> > pgpool.conf) is now N+1 and I think this is slightly misleading. However,
> > it is a not bad idea to allow pcp_watchdog_info show all nodes information.
> >
> >
> Well, this is correct the new watchdog node ID system might confuse some
> users because of ID=0 is now reserved for local watchdog node and the
> remote watchdog nodes will start from id > 0, But the problem here is that
> we need some ID for the local watchdog node not only for the
> pcp_watchdog_info utility, but also for the IPC commands (GET NODES LIST, NODE
> STATUS CHANGE and NODES LIST DATA) that deals with the watchdog node
> information (used by the external/3rd party health checking system
> integrating with the watchdog).  So I tried to use the same node ID scheme
> across the new watchdog (In both IPC commands and pcp_watchdog_info
> utility) to keep things consistent in the new watchdog.
> I think we can document this particular change to make sure users should
> not get confused by it or you have some other idea to get around this which
> we can also use in watchdog IPC command?

No, I don't have other good idea.
I agree with the document change.


-- 
Yugo Nagata <nagata at sraoss.co.jp>