| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Creager <Robert_Creager(at)LogicalChaos(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: 7.4Beta1 "failed to create socket: Address family not |
| Date: | 2003-08-12 14:12:44 |
| Message-ID: | 1391.1060697564@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
Bruce Momjian <pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> But I still wonder whether we shouldn't suppress the message entirely,
>> at least for EAFNOSUPPORT errors.
> If we suppress it entirely, there is no user-visible report that IPv6
> isn't enabled on this computer, though if your kernel doesn't support
> it, you would think they would know that, but I suspect many people
> don't know it has to be enabled in the kernel --- hence the wording of
> the original message.
I don't see your point at all. If they don't have IPv6 enabled in the
kernel, they don't need it. Or if they do, Postgres launch is surely
not going to be the place where they discover they need it.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Shridhar Daithankar | 2003-08-12 14:14:33 | Re: Timestamp with zero precision |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2003-08-12 14:07:18 | Re: 7.4Beta1 "failed to create socket: Address family not |