Andres Freund <> writes:
> I don't mind the new output, but I kinda wonder whether it's a good idea
> to include the '.s.PGSQL.5432' bit in the host and/or whether we
> shouldn't include the port in the TCP cases as well

Yeah, I've been thinking that maybe it should look like

2017-03-13 10:08:49.399 EDT [90059] LOG:  listening on IPv6 address "::1", port 
2017-03-13 10:08:49.399 EDT [90059] LOG:  listening on IPv4 address 
"", port 5432
2017-03-13 10:08:49.400 EDT [90059] LOG:  listening on Unix address 

It would take a couple more lines of code to make that happen, but
it would future-proof the messages against the day we decide to
allow one server to respond to more than one port number ...

                        regards, tom lane

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to