| From: | Richard Guo <guofenglinux(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> |
| Cc: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: A failure in prepared_xacts test |
| Date: | 2024-04-29 09:11:19 |
| Message-ID: | CAMbWs48uTLZT14aaBaEg7cpB6ercU5wm9+WfGLGC3VoP28gfCA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 2:58 PM Michael Paquier <michael(at)paquier(dot)xyz> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 01:32:40AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > (BTW, on the same logic, should ecpg's twophase.pgc be using a
> > prepared-transaction name that's less generic than "gxid"?)
>
> I've hesitated a few seconds about that before sending my patch, but
> refrained because this stuff does not care about the contents of
> pg_prepared_xacts. I'd be OK to use something like an "ecpg_regress"
> or something similar there.
I noticed that some TAP tests from recovery and subscription would
select the count from pg_prepared_xacts. I wonder if these tests would
be affected if there are any prepared transactions on the backend.
Thanks
Richard
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2024-04-29 09:12:01 | Re: Support a wildcard in backtrace_functions |
| Previous Message | shveta malik | 2024-04-29 09:10:31 | Re: Synchronizing slots from primary to standby |