From: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
Cc: | Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Incomplete startup packet errors |
Date: | 2016-04-13 14:04:49 |
Message-ID: | CABUevEzq8_nSq7fwe0-fbOAK8S2YNN-PkfsamfEvy2-d3dRUoA@mail.gmail.com |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
> > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg(at)heroku(dot)com> wrote:
> >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
> >> wrote:
> >>> It's fairly common to see a lot of "Incomplete startup packet" in the
> >>> logfiles caused by monitoring or healthcheck connections.
>
> >> I've also seen it caused by port scanning.
>
> > Yes, definitely. Question there might be if that's actually a case when
> we
> > *want* that logging?
>
> I should think someone might. But I doubt we want to introduce another
> GUC for this. Would it be okay to downgrade the message to DEBUG1 if
> zero bytes were received?
>
>
Yeah, that was my suggestion - I think that's a reasonable compromise. And
yes, I agree that a separate GUC for it would be a huge overkill.
--
Magnus Hagander
Me: http://www.hagander.net/
Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2016-04-13 14:08:21 | Re: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql: Avoid extra locks in GetSnapshotData if old_snapshot_threshold < |
Previous Message | Tom Lane | 2016-04-13 13:59:14 | Re: SET ROLE and reserved roles |