|From:||Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org>|
|To:||Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>|
|Cc:||Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>, Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>|
|Subject:||Re: [HACKERS] Incomplete startup packet errors|
|Views:||Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email|
Re: Magnus Hagander 2016-04-13 <CABUevEzq8_nSq7fwe0-fbOAK8S2YNN-PkfsamfEvy2-d3dRUoA(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> > >>> It's fairly common to see a lot of "Incomplete startup packet" in the
> > >>> logfiles caused by monitoring or healthcheck connections.
> > >> I've also seen it caused by port scanning.
> > > Yes, definitely. Question there might be if that's actually a case when
> > we
> > > *want* that logging?
> > I should think someone might. But I doubt we want to introduce another
> > GUC for this. Would it be okay to downgrade the message to DEBUG1 if
> > zero bytes were received?
> Yeah, that was my suggestion - I think that's a reasonable compromise. And
> yes, I agree that a separate GUC for it would be a huge overkill.
There have been numerous complaints about that log message, and the
usual reply is always something like what Pavel said recently:
"It is garbage. Usually it means nothing, but better to work live
without this garbage." 
Let's get rid of it.
|Next Message||Stephen Frost||2019-02-28 15:22:13||PostgreSQL Participates in GSoC 2019!|
|Previous Message||Tom Lane||2019-02-28 15:13:17||Re: Prevent extension creation in temporary schemas|