Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: How many postmasters should be running?

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: "Stock, Stuart" <Stuart(dot)Stock(at)DrKW(dot)com>
Cc: Michael Fuhr <mike(at)fuhr(dot)org>, pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: How many postmasters should be running?
Date: 2006-02-28 18:14:23
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-general
"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 JohanssonDate: 2006-02-28 18:52:32
Subject: PQisBusy returns true but no more data is received.
Previous:From: Stock, StuartDate: 2006-02-28 18:06:20
Subject: Re: How many postmasters should be running?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group