On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 3:56 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes: > > On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Peter Geoghegan <p...@heroku.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, Apr 13, 2016 at 1:02 AM, Magnus Hagander <mag...@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. -- Magnus Hagander Me: http://www.hagander.net/ Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
