On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 06:06:05AM +0100, Laurenz Albe wrote: > On Fri, 2023-01-27 at 16:15 +1300, Thomas Munro wrote: >> There is no >> doubt that the current situation is unacceptable, though, so maybe we >> really should just do it and make a faster one later. Anyone else >> want to vote on this? > > I wasn't aware of the existence of pg_xact_status, so I suspect that it > is not a widely known and used feature. After reading the documentation, > I'd say that anybody who uses it will want it to give a reliable answer. > So I'd agree that it is better to make it more expensive, but live up to > its promise.
A code search within the Debian packages (codesearch.debian.net) and github does not show that it is not actually used, pg_xact_status() is reported as parts of copies of the Postgres code in the regression tests. FWIW, my vote goes for a more expensive but reliable function even in stable branches. Even 857ee8e mentions that this could be used on a lost connection, so we don't even satisfy the use case of the original commit as things stand (right?), because lost connection could just be a result of a crash, and if crash recovery reassigns the XID, then the client gets it wrong. -- Michael
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
