<div dir="ltr">Hi<div><br></div><div>I have taken care of review comments and committed the patch.</div><div><br></div><div><a href="http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=pgpool2.git;a=commit;h=1244817ebd4b3728e441a0feb81d8074c2605ef9">http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=pgpool2.git;a=commit;h=1244817ebd4b3728e441a0feb81d8074c2605ef9</a><br></div><div><br></div><div>Thanks</div><div>Kind regards</div><div>Muhammad Usama</div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jan 4, 2016 at 9:08 AM, Yugo Nagata <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nagata@sraoss.co.jp" target="_blank">nagata@sraoss.co.jp</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">Hi Usama,<br>
<span class=""><br>
On Sat, 2 Jan 2016 23:41:53 +0500<br>
Muhammad Usama <<a href="mailto:m.usama@gmail.com">m.usama@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> > To be frank, I'm not sure it is good idea to use ID=0 to stand for local<br>
> > watchdog, because the ID of Nth remote pgpool (other_pgpool_hostnameN in<br>
> > pgpool.conf) is now N+1 and I think this is slightly misleading. However,<br>
> > it is a not bad idea to allow pcp_watchdog_info show all nodes information.<br>
> ><br>
> ><br>
> Well, this is correct the new watchdog node ID system might confuse some<br>
> users because of ID=0 is now reserved for local watchdog node and the<br>
> remote watchdog nodes will start from id > 0, But the problem here is that<br>
> we need some ID for the local watchdog node not only for the<br>
> pcp_watchdog_info utility, but also for the IPC commands (GET NODES LIST, NODE<br>
> STATUS CHANGE and NODES LIST DATA) that deals with the watchdog node<br>
> information (used by the external/3rd party health checking system<br>
> integrating with the watchdog). So I tried to use the same node ID scheme<br>
> across the new watchdog (In both IPC commands and pcp_watchdog_info<br>
> utility) to keep things consistent in the new watchdog.<br>
> I think we can document this particular change to make sure users should<br>
> not get confused by it or you have some other idea to get around this which<br>
> we can also use in watchdog IPC command?<br>
<br>
</span>No, I don't have other good idea.<br>
I agree with the document change.<br>
<span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>
--<br>
Yugo Nagata <<a href="mailto:nagata@sraoss.co.jp">nagata@sraoss.co.jp</a>><br>
</font></span></blockquote></div><br></div>