"Stock, Stuart" <Stuart(dot)Stock(at)DrKW(dot)com> writes:
> Perhaps I'm just seeing a moment-in-time snapshot of the postmaster
> fork()'ing to handle these connections, but because they were rejected, it
> never had time to rename itself to 'postgres'?
There's definitely a short window between the fork and the point where
the child process is able to change the way it appears in ps.
[ eyes code... ] In particular, if you have log_hostname enabled,
it looks like we could wait for a DNS response (to the lookup of the
client IP address) before we change the ps status.
regards, tom lane
In response to
pgsql-general by date
|Next:||From: Pelle Johansson||Date: 2006-02-28 18:52:32|
|Subject: PQisBusy returns true but no more data is received.|
|Previous:||From: Stock, Stuart||Date: 2006-02-28 18:06:20|
|Subject: Re: How many postmasters should be running?|