On Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 2:58 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.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.
