| From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: duplicate connection failure messages |
| Date: | 2010-11-12 01:54:17 |
| Message-ID: | 201011120154.oAC1sHa22085@momjian.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On tor, 2010-10-14 at 07:30 +0200, Magnus Hagander wrote:
> > And I agree it's not very friendly in this specific case - I
> > wonder if we should log it as "localhost (127.0.0.1) and "localhost
> > (::1)" (and similar for any other case that returns more than one
> > address).
>
> That looks good.
I have developed the attached patch to report whether IPv4 or IPv6 are
being used. I could not find the numeric value as alwasy populated, and
this seems clearer too:
$ pql -h localhost test
psql: could not connect to server: Connection refused
Is the server running on host "localhost" (IPv4) and accepting
TCP/IP connections on port 5432?
$ psql -h 127.0.0.1 test
psql: could not connect to server: Connection refused
Is the server running on host "127.0.0.1" (IPv4) and accepting
TCP/IP connections on port 5432?
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| /pgpatches/libpq_ipv6 | text/x-diff | 1.2 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | mark | 2010-11-12 02:31:51 | locales and encodings Oh MY! |
| Previous Message | Itagaki Takahiro | 2010-11-12 01:36:34 | Re: MULTISET and additional functions for ARRAY |