From: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
To: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
cc: Richard Guo <guofenglinux@gmail.com>,
        PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: A failure in prepared_xacts test
In-reply-to: <Zi8vNgPIaeUP5-iM@paquier.xyz>
References: <CAMbWs4-mWCGbbE_bne5=AfqjYGDaUZmjCw2+soLjrdNA0xUDFw@mail.gmail.com> <Zi8pC2WkIL56cHmj@paquier.xyz> <1068977.1714367460@sss.pgh.pa.us> <Zi8vNgPIaeUP5-iM@paquier.xyz>
Comments: In-reply-to Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
	message dated "Mon, 29 Apr 2024 14:25:10 +0900"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-ID: <1076836.1714368760.1@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2024 01:32:40 -0400
Message-ID: <1076837.1714368760@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Archived-At: <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1076837.1714368760%40sss.pgh.pa.us>
Precedence: bulk

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> I don't disagree with your point, still I'm not sure that this can be
> made entirely bullet-proof.  Anyway, I think that we should still
> improve this test and make it more robust for parallel operations:
> installcheck fails equally on HEAD if there is a prepared transaction
> on the backend where the tests run, and that seems like a bad idea to
> me to rely on cluster-wide scans for what should be a "local" test.

True, it's antithetical to the point of an "installcheck" test if
unrelated actions in another database can break it.  So I'm fine
with tightening up prepared_xacts's query.  I just wonder how far
we want to try to carry this.

(BTW, on the same logic, should ecpg's twophase.pgc be using a
prepared-transaction name that's less generic than "gxid"?)

			regards, tom lane