Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 11:27:22 -0500
From: Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Tels <nospam-pg-abuse@bloodgate.com>,
	Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
	Joe Conway <mail@joeconway.com>,
	"pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: Upgrading postmaster's log messages about bind/listen
 errors
Message-ID: <20170310162722.GG9812@tamriel.snowman.net>
References: <9564.1489091245@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <e3a1715d-dd25-d9bb-4a28-6839c242a2f7@joeconway.com>
 <CA+TgmoYpQiZMPHfQX8x8P+RqEq0XQBSb32QHTZ8dDwU+aP3qzg@mail.gmail.com>
 <19479.1489121003@sss.pgh.pa.us>
 <8371d0860a6019e5630bcdd2a96610ab.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com>
 <20170310135656.GD9812@tamriel.snowman.net>
 <12776.1489160501@sss.pgh.pa.us>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha512;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="6+zbkgZlzZNNdywa"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <12776.1489160501@sss.pgh.pa.us>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Precedence: bulk
Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org


--6+zbkgZlzZNNdywa
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes:
> > database system is ready to accept connections on (1.2.3.4)
>=20
> That would be a problem from a couple of directions.  First, it wouldn't
> be unusual for there to be half a dozen addresses to list, not just one.
> Even a default configuration would probably read like
>=20
> database system is ready to accept connections on (127.0.0.1, ::1, /tmp/.=
s.PGSQL.5432)

Yeah, that's probably a bit much to have all on one line.

> which doesn't seem very appetizing to me.  Second, it would be
> considerably messier to implement because the "ready to accept
> connections" message comes out physically distant from the
> StreamServerPort function, and we don't save the struct addrinfo list
> past the end of that function.  So I think the logging setup I had in
> my patch is pretty much the only sane way to do it, and we just have
> to decide whether it's worth exposing at default log level or not.

I definitely think we should include it at the default log level.  We
certainly wouldn't be the first daemon process to do so (bind9 comes to
mind, but I notice ntpd, nrpe, and strongswan do also, and probably some
others).

Thanks!

Stephen

--6+zbkgZlzZNNdywa
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1
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=HR5A
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--6+zbkgZlzZNNdywa--