[pgpool-hackers: 1311] Re: changing the pcp_watchdog_info

[Muhammad Usama]

Hi

I have taken care of review comments and committed the patch.

http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=pgpool2.git;a=commit;h=1244817ebd4b3728e441a0feb81d8074c2605ef9

Thanks
Kind regards
Muhammad Usama

On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Yugo Nagata <nagata at sraoss.co.jp> wrote:

> 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>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.sraoss.jp/pipermail/pgpool-hackers/attachments/20160107/2ea536c5/attachment.html>