Hi, On 2023-01-27 22:39:56 -0500, Tom Lane wrote: > Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes: > > On 2023-01-28 11:38:50 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote: > >> FWIW, my vote goes for a more expensive but reliable function even in > >> stable branches. > > > I very strenuously object. If we make txid_current() (by way of > > pg_current_xact_id()) flush WAL, we'll cause outages. > > What are you using it for, that you don't care whether the answer > is trustworthy?
It's quite commonly used as part of trigger based replication tools (IIRC that's its origin), monitoring, as part of client side logging, as part of snapshot management. txid_current() predates pg_xact_status() by well over 10 years. Clearly we had lots of uses for it before pg_xact_status() was around. Greetings, Andres Freund
