Tom Lane wrote:
>Kurt Roeckx <Q@ping.be> writes:
>
>
>>Should we just not give that error message, in case we already
>>binded to AF_INET6 ::?
>>
>>
>
>Seems like a cure worse than the disease to me --- it could mask
>real problems. I suppose we could think about dropping it from LOG
>to DEBUG1 level, so that it wouldn't appear in a default setup;
>but I'm not sure I'm for that either.
>
>Given the, ahem, wide variety of behaviors that seem to be out there,
>I think we'd best be happy if we have a v4/v6 implementation that has
>no problems worse than spurious log messages ...
>
>
I agree. Things that might be serious problems should not be hidden.
Maybe it would be better to add a message that the error might be
harmless if you have IPv6 turned on.
cheers
andrew
