Re: Something is wrong with wal_compression

Andres Freund <andres@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?

            regards, tom lane