TransactionIdIsInProgress had a fast path to return 'false' if the
single-item CLOG cache said that the transaction was known to be
committed. However, that was wrong, because a transaction is first
marked as committed in the CLOG but doesn't become visible to others
until it has removed its XID from the proc array. That could lead to an
error:

    ERROR:  t_xmin is uncommitted in tuple to be updated

or for an UPDATE to go ahead without blocking, before the previous
UPDATE on the same row was made visible.

The window is usually very short, but synchronous replication makes it
much wider, because the wait for synchronous replica happens in that
window.

Another thing that makes it hard to hit is that it's hard to get such
a commit-in-progress transaction into the single item CLOG cache.
Normally, if you call TransactionIdIsInProgress on such a transaction,
it determines that the XID is in progress without checking the CLOG
and without populating the cache. One way to prime the cache is to
explicitly call pg_xact_status() on the XID. Another way is to use a
lot of subtransactions, so that the subxid cache in the proc array is
overflown, making TransactionIdIsInProgress rely on pg_subtrans and
CLOG checks.

This has been broken ever since it was introduced in 2008, but the race
condition is very hard to hit, especially without synchronous
replication. There were a couple of reports of the error starting from
summer 2021, but no one was able to find the root cause then.

TransactionIdIsKnownCompleted() is now unused. In 'master', remove it,
but I left it in place in backbranches in case it's used by extensions.

Also change pg_xact_status() to check TransactionIdIsInProgress().
Previously, it only checked the CLOG, and returned "committed" before
the transaction was actually made visible to other queries. Note that
this also means that you cannot use pg_xact_status() to reproduce the
bug anymore, even if the code wasn't fixed.

Report and analysis by Konstantin Knizhnik. Patch by Simon Riggs, with
the pg_xact_status() change added by me.

Author: Simon Riggs
Reviewed-by: Andres Freund
Discussion: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/4da7913d-398c-e2ad-d777-f752cf7f0bbb%40garret.ru