Re: duplicate connection failure messages

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. +

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  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