On Fri, Mar 5, 2021 at 5:10 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I wrote: > > I'd be kind of inclined to remove this test script altogether, on the > > grounds that it's wasting cycles on a function that doesn't really > > do what is claimed (and we should remove the documentation claim, too). > > Alternatively, maybe we can salvage the function's usefulness by making it > flush WAL before returning?
To make pg_xact_status()'s result reliable, don't you need to make pg_current_xact_id() flush? In other words, isn't it at the point that you *observe* the transaction that you have to make sure that this transaction ID won't be reused after crash recovery. Before that, it's simultaneously allocated and unallocated, like the cat.
