* Tom Lane (t...@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> 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 5432 > 2017-03-13 10:08:49.399 EDT [90059] LOG: listening on IPv4 address > "127.0.0.1", port 5432 > 2017-03-13 10:08:49.400 EDT [90059] LOG: listening on Unix address > "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432" > > 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 ...
I certainly agree with adding the port for TCP. I also agree with Andres' point about the unix socket, though I'm tempted to suggest that we should just teach libpq to understand a straight unix socket being passed for host/-h rather than change what the server reports here.. Thanks! Stephen
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
