Re: Incomplete startup packet errors
| От | Magnus Hagander |
|---|---|
| Тема | Re: Incomplete startup packet errors |
| Дата | |
| Msg-id | CABUevEzq8_nSq7fwe0-fbOAK8S2YNN-PkfsamfEvy2-d3dRUoA@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
| Ответ на | Re: Incomplete startup packet errors (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
| Ответы |
Re: [HACKERS] Incomplete startup packet errors
|
| Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Peter Geoghegan <pg@heroku.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.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.
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: