On Thu, Mar 9, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Joe Conway <m...@joeconway.com> wrote: > On 03/09/2017 12:27 PM, Tom Lane wrote: >> Over in >> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/201703072317.01345.john.iliffe%40iliffe.ca >> we spent quite a lot of effort to diagnose what turned out to be a simple >> networking misconfiguration. It would probably have taken a lot less >> effort if the postmaster were more forthcoming about exactly what address >> it's trying to bind to. I seem to recall having wanted to include that >> info in the messages many years ago, but at the time we lacked any >> reasonably-portable way to decode a struct addrinfo. Now we have >> pg_getnameinfo_all(), so PFA a patch to include the specific address in >> any complaint about failures in the socket/bind/listen sequence. >> >> For good measure I also added a DEBUG1 log message reporting successful >> binding to a port. I'm not sure if there's an argument for putting this >> out at LOG level (i.e. by default) --- any thoughts about that? > > +1 for making it LOG instead of DEBUG1
I would tend to vote against that, because startup is getting gradually chattier and chattier, and I think this isn't likely to be of interest to very many people most of the time. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
