Thomas Munro <thomas.munro@gmail.com> writes:
> On Fri, Jan 27, 2023 at 3:04 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> I think we need to get the thing correct first and worry about
>> performance later. What's wrong with simply making pg_xact_status
>> write and flush a record of the XID's existence before returning it?
>> Yeah, it will cost you if you use that function, but not if you don't.
> It would be pg_current_xact_id() that would have to pay the cost of
> the WAL flush, not pg_xact_status() itself,
Right, typo on my part.
regards, tom lane
