Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve postmaster's logging of listen socket creation.

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
Cc: "pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve postmaster's logging of listen socket creation.
Date: 2017-03-13 14:19:37
Message-ID: 23987.1489414777@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> So now on every startup I get this:

> 2017-03-13 10:08:49.399 EDT [90059] LOG: listening on IPv6 address "::1"
> 2017-03-13 10:08:49.399 EDT [90059] LOG: listening on IPv4 address "127.0.0.1"
> 2017-03-13 10:08:49.400 EDT [90059] LOG: listening on Unix address
> "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432"

> I think the idea that this is worth three lines of log output (out of
> a total of six) is hard to stomach.

You were in the minority before on the usefulness of this output, and
I think you still are. Personally I've already found it useful to be
able to check that buildfarm runs are binding to (only) the addresses
they're supposed to.

Besides, unless someone has an objection to what I proposed in
<17211(dot)1489189214(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> concerning getting rid of the
"MultiXact member wraparound protections are now enabled" message
in the normal case, we'll have saved three other lines relative
to where we were before, so that the net chattiness is the same.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2017-03-13 15:31:23 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve postmaster's logging of listen socket creation.
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-03-13 14:12:42 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Improve postmaster's logging of listen socket creation.

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Steele 2017-03-13 14:19:57 Re: [PATCH] Suppress Clang 3.9 warnings
Previous Message Amit Kapila 2017-03-13 14:18:51 Re: Parallel seq. plan is not coming against inheritance or partition table