Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2021 at 12:19 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> But the 'could not connect to socket' part is a consequence of my >> recent fiddling with libpq's connection failure reporting, see >> 52a10224e. We could discuss exactly how that ought to be spelled, >> but the idea is to consistently identify the host that we were trying >> to connect to. If you have a multi-host connection string, it's >> conceivable that "rhaas" exists on some of those hosts and not others, >> so I do not think the info is irrelevant.
> I'm not saying that which socket I used is totally irrelevant although > in most cases it's going to be a lot of detail. I'm just saying that, > at least for me, when you say you can't connect to a socket, I at > least think about the return value of connect(2), which was clearly 0 > here. Fair. One possibility, which'd take a few more cycles in libpq but likely not anything significant, is to replace "could not connect to ..." with "while connecting to ..." once we're past the connect() per se. > Maybe it would be better if it said: > connection to database at socket "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432" failed: FATAL: > database "rhaas" does not exist I'd be inclined to spell it "connection to server at ... failed", but that sort of wording is surely also possible. regards, tom lane