* Tom Lane (tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us) wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> > I don't mind the new output, but I kinda wonder whether it's a good idea
> > to include the '.s.PGSQL.5432' bit in the host and/or whether we
> > shouldn't include the port in the TCP cases as well
>
> Yeah, I've been thinking that maybe it should look like
>
> 2017-03-13 10:08:49.399 EDT [90059] LOG: listening on IPv6 address "::1", port 5432
> 2017-03-13 10:08:49.399 EDT [90059] LOG: listening on IPv4 address "127.0.0.1", port 5432
> 2017-03-13 10:08:49.400 EDT [90059] LOG: listening on Unix address "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432"
>
> It would take a couple more lines of code to make that happen, but
> it would future-proof the messages against the day we decide to
> allow one server to respond to more than one port number ...
I certainly agree with adding the port for TCP. I also agree with
Andres' point about the unix socket, though I'm tempted to suggest that
we should just teach libpq to understand a straight unix socket being
passed for host/-h rather than change what the server reports here..
Thanks!
Stephen
