Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>> Ick. Is it possible that the postmaster did get a report, but thought
>>> it was normal session termination? If so, how could we distinguish?
>>>
>
>
>> If that were the case then it would not have the dead process still
>> listed as a live backend, ISTM, which it does.
>>
>
> The postmaster does not control the content of the pg_stat_activity
> view.
>
>
>
Well, I'm not I know how to find out the answer to your question. I
could try attaching a debugger to the postmaster - if I knew where to
put a breakpoint.
cheers
andrew