Обсуждение: TransactionIdIsActive() has long been unused

Hi,

While looking at Tomas' NUMA patchset I got curious what we use
TransactionIdIsActive() for (it's modified in the patchset). Turns out we
don't. And haven't for a long while, the last use was removed in

commit bb38fb0d43c
Author: Heikki Linnakangas <heikki.linnakangas@iki.fi>
Date:   2014-05-15 16:37:50 +0300

    Fix race condition in preparing a transaction for two-phase commit.

Seems like we should just remove TransactionIdIsActive()?

Greetings,

Andres Freund

Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> Seems like we should just remove TransactionIdIsActive()?

+1.  I wondered if any extensions might depend on it, but
could not find any trace of that in Debian code search.
And it's a sufficiently odd test (as noted in its comments)
that one could debate whether using it for an extension's
purposes would be correct anyway.

            regards, tom lane

On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 03:46:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
>> Seems like we should just remove TransactionIdIsActive()?
>
> +1.  I wondered if any extensions might depend on it, but
> could not find any trace of that in Debian code search.
> And it's a sufficiently odd test (as noted in its comments)
> that one could debate whether using it for an extension's
> purposes would be correct anyway.

+1.
--
Michael

Hi,

On 2025-07-10 09:52:45 +0900, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 09, 2025 at 03:46:43PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de> writes:
> >> Seems like we should just remove TransactionIdIsActive()?
> > 
> > +1.  I wondered if any extensions might depend on it, but
> > could not find any trace of that in Debian code search.
> > And it's a sufficiently odd test (as noted in its comments)
> > that one could debate whether using it for an extension's
> > purposes would be correct anyway.
> 
> +1.

Great. Thanks for checking Tom, Michael.  Pushed.

Greetings,

Andres Freund