Tom Lane wrote: > Bruce Momjian <pgman@candle.pha.pa.us> writes: > > Yea, we could do that, but does it make sense to downgrade the > > connection message, especially since the "connection authorized" message > > doesn't contain the hostname. We would have to add the host name to the > > "connection authorized" message and at that point there is little need > > for the "connection received" message. > > The connection-authorized message could be made to carry all the info > for the normal successful-connection case, but for connection failures > (not only bad password, but any other startup failure) it isn't going > to help. So on reflection I think we'd better keep the > connection-received message --- else we'd have to add the equivalent > info to all the failure-case messages. > > I'm coming to agree with Andrew that a documentation patch might be the > best answer. But where to put it ... under the description of the > log_connections GUC var?
I am thinking we should wait for someone else to notice the double log entries before mentioning it in the docs. -- Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us pgman@candle.pha.pa.us | (610) 359-1001 + If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road + Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
