Thomas Munro <thomas.mu...@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 11:14 AM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> If any tuples made by that transaction had reached disk,
>> we'd have a problem.
> The problem is that the WAL wasn't flushed, allowing the same xid to
> be allocated again after crash recovery. But for any data pages to
> hit the disk, we'd have to flush WAL first, so then it couldn't
> happen, no?
Ah, now I get the point: the "committed xact" seen after restart
isn't the same one as we saw before the crash, but a new one that
was given the same XID because nothing about the old one had made
it to disk yet.
> FWIW I also re-complained about the dangers of anyone
> relying on pg_xact_status() for its stated purpose after seeing
> tanager's failure[1].
Indeed, it seems like this behavior makes pg_xact_status() basically
useless as things stand.
regards, tom lane
