Fujii Masao wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 5, 2010 at 11:29 PM, Alvaro Herrera
> <alvherre@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