"Stock, Stuart" <Stuart.Stock@xxxxxxxx> 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
