| 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: | 16914.1141150463@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| 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
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Pelle Johansson | 2006-02-28 18:52:32 | PQisBusy returns true but no more data is received. |
| Previous Message | Stock, Stuart | 2006-02-28 18:06:20 | Re: How many postmasters should be running? |