Michael Paquier <mich...@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
