Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane writes:
>> Actually, I think that that may be expected behavior depending on the
>> vintage of the kernel. Note the following comment in
>> StreamServerPort():
> Can we make the warning less misleading if IPV6_V6ONLY does not exist?
Possibl
Tom Lane writes:
> Actually, I think that that may be expected behavior depending on the
> vintage of the kernel. Note the following comment in
> StreamServerPort():
Can we make the warning less misleading if IPV6_V6ONLY does not exist?
--
Peter Eisentraut [EMAIL PROTECTED]
---
Tom Lane wrote:
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
Should we just not give that error message, in case we already
binded to AF_INET6 ::?
Seems like a cure worse than the disease to me --- it could mask
real problems. I suppose we could think about dropping it from LOG
to DEBUG1 level
Kurt Roeckx <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Should we just not give that error message, in case we already
> binded to AF_INET6 ::?
Seems like a cure worse than the disease to me --- it could mask
real problems. I suppose we could think about dropping it from LOG
to DEBUG1 level, so that it wouldn'
On Thu, Nov 06, 2003 at 03:42:39PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Is it possible that that kernel considers binding to an IPv6 port to
> >> conflict with binding to the "same" port number as an IPv4 port?
>
> Actually, I think that that may be expected behavior depending on the
> vintage of the kerne
>> Is it possible that that kernel considers binding to an IPv6 port to
>> conflict with binding to the "same" port number as an IPv4 port?
Actually, I think that that may be expected behavior depending on the
vintage of the kernel. Note the following comment in
StreamServerPort():
/*
Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
When I start up with -i, I get the following log:
LOG: could not bind IPv4 socket: Address already in use
There is no other postmaster running anywhere. I suspect that this has to
do with IPv6. This is a SuSE 8.something ma
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I don't understand this business, but if it helps, below is my ifconfig
> output.
Hmm, you have a bunch of addresses don't you? It looks like we should
have included more information in the report of bind failures, like
exactly which address failed.
Tom Lane writes:
> Is it possible that that kernel considers binding to an IPv6 port to
> conflict with binding to the "same" port number as an IPv4 port?
I don't understand this business, but if it helps, below is my ifconfig
output.
eth0 Link encap:Ethernet HWaddr 00:40:F6:74:BE:71
Peter Eisentraut <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> When I start up with -i, I get the following log:
> LOG: could not bind IPv4 socket: Address already in use
> There is no other postmaster running anywhere. I suspect that this has to
> do with IPv6. This is a SuSE 8.something machine that is relat
When I start up with -i, I get the following log:
LOG: could not bind IPv4 socket: Address already in use
HINT: Is another postmaster already running on port 5432? If not, wait a few seconds
and retry.
LOG: database system was shut down at 2003-11-06 20:47:54 CET
LOG: checkpoint record is at
11 matches
Mail list logo
