Re: abstract Unix-domain sockets

On Tue, Nov 17, 2020 at 11:18:12PM +0100, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> So the mention of the "port" doesn't really add any information here and
> just introduces new terminology that isn't really relevant.
> 
> My idea is to change the message to:
> 
> ERROR:  could not bind Unix address "/tmp/.s.PGSQL.5432": Address already in
> use
> HINT:  Is another postmaster already running at this address?

Are you saying that you would remove the hint telling to remove the
socket file even for the case of non-abstract files?  For abstract
paths, this makes sense.  For both, removing the "port" part is indeed
a good idea as long as you keep around the full socket file name.
--
Michael