On Wed, Nov 11, 2020 at 01:39:17PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Thinking about it further, I think the hint in the Unix-domain socket case
> is bogus. A socket in the file-system namespace never reports EADDRINUSE
> anyway, it just overwrites the file. For sockets in the abstract namespace,
> you can get this error, but of course there is no file to remove.
>
> Perhaps we should change the hint in both the Unix and the IP cases to:
>
> "Is another postmaster already running at this address?"
> (This also resolves the confusing reference to "port" in the Unix case.)
Er, it is perfectly possible for two postmasters to use the same unix
socket path, abstract or not, as long as they listen to different
ports (all nodes in a single TAP test do that for example). So we
should keep a reference to the port used in the log message, no?
> Or we just drop the hint in the Unix case. The primary error message is
> clear enough.
Dropping the hint for the abstract case sounds fine to me.
--
Michael
