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.
--
Michael
