Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> I don't mind the new output, but I kinda wonder whether it's a good idea
> to include the '.s.PGSQL.5432' bit in the host and/or whether we
> shouldn't include the port in the TCP cases as well
Yeah, I've been thinking that maybe it should look like
2017-03-13 10:08:49.399 EDT [90059] LOG: listening on IPv6 address "::1", port
5432
2017-03-13 10:08:49.399 EDT [90059] LOG: listening on IPv4 address
"127.0.0.1", port 5432
2017-03-13 10:08:49.400 EDT [90059] LOG: listening on Unix address
"/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432"
It would take a couple more lines of code to make that happen, but
it would future-proof the messages against the day we decide to
allow one server to respond to more than one port number ...
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
