Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cmRDa-0003NM-VC for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:32:55 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with smtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cmRDa-0007eB-B3 for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:32:54 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cmRDZ-0007dh-Qh for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:32:53 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cmRDW-0006ca-Pl for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 20:32:53 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id v2AKWkIE029713; Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:32:46 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Alvaro Herrera cc: Euler Taveira , Robert Haas , Joe Conway , "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" Subject: Re: Upgrading postmaster's log messages about bind/listen errors In-reply-to: <20170310202722.shpauoi6zcpptu2k@alvherre.pgsql> References: <20170310202722.shpauoi6zcpptu2k@alvherre.pgsql> Comments: In-reply-to Alvaro Herrera message dated "Fri, 10 Mar 2017 17:27:22 -0300" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <29711.1489177966.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2017 15:32:46 -0500 Message-ID: <29712.1489177966@sss.pgh.pa.us> X-Pg-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) List-Archive: List-Help: List-ID: List-Owner: List-Post: List-Subscribe: List-Unsubscribe: X-Mailing-List: pgsql-hackers Precedence: bulk Sender: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org Alvaro Herrera writes: > Tom Lane wrote: >> Uh, what's that got to do with it? I'm not proposing to downgrade this >> message in 9.3, or indeed any current release branch. But it's hard >> to believe that a 9.3 installation that had the problem would manage >> to make it all the way to a v10 upgrade without the problem having been >> fixed. Even if there's one or two incompetent DBAs out there whom >> that would apply to, I don't think the rest of the world needs to keep >> seeing this message by default. > Well, you could take a broken 9.3 installation and pg_upgrade it to > pg10. It wouldn't be any less broken. Sure, but does the rest of the world need to keep looking at this message? Anybody who's actually in that situation probably never looks at the postmaster log at all. I think that what would actually be of some use nowadays is a LOG-level message emitted if the wraparound *isn't* activated immediately at start. But otherwise, we should follow the rule that silence is golden. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers