From: | Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: duplicate connection failure messages |
Date: | 2010-11-12 14:02:40 |
Message-ID: | 201011121402.oACE2e227080@momjian.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Tom Lane wrote:
> Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> writes:
> > I have developed the attached patch to report whether IPv4 or IPv6 are
> > being used.
>
> What's the use of that exactly? It doesn't really respond to Peter's
> concern, I think.
Peter liked:
> 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).
What this will show is:
localhost (IPv4)
localhost (IPv6)
Is that good? I can't figure out how to do ::1 because when you supply
a host _name_, there is no reverse mapping done. Looking at the code,
we test for a host name, then a host ip, and don't assume they are both
set.
--
Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us> http://momjian.us
EnterpriseDB http://enterprisedb.com
+ It's impossible for everything to be true. +
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2010-11-12 14:05:02 | Re: Simplifying replication |
Previous Message | Heikki Linnakangas | 2010-11-12 14:01:39 | Re: We need index-only scans |