| From: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: abstract Unix-domain sockets |
| Date: | 2020-11-18 02:00:28 |
| Message-ID: | 20201118020028.GJ19692@paquier.xyz |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:18:12PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> So the mention of the "port" doesn't really add any information here and
> just introduces new terminology that isn't really relevant.
>
> My idea is to change the message to:
>
> ERROR: could not bind Unix address "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432": Address already in
> use
> HINT: Is another postmaster already running at this address?
Are you saying that you would remove the hint telling to remove the
socket file even for the case of non-abstract files? For abstract
paths, this makes sense. For both, removing the "port" part is indeed
a good idea as long as you keep around the full socket file name.
--
Michael
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2020-11-18 02:04:18 | Re: VACUUM (DISABLE_PAGE_SKIPPING on) |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2020-11-18 01:43:52 | Re: remove spurious CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY wait |