| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
| Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Incomplete startup packet errors |
| Date: | 2016-04-13 13:56:43 |
| Message-ID: | 20758.1460555803@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
>> wrote:
>>> 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?
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-13 13:59:14 | Re: SET ROLE and reserved roles |
| Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-13 13:52:04 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |