On Fri, Nov 08, 2024 at 11:46:36AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> writes:
> > On Thu, Nov 07, 2024 at 02:29:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Ah, that could be a way out. Stick an INTERRUPTS_CAN_BE_PROCESSED()
> >> call somewhere in there?
>
> > Exactly. If !INTERRUPTS_CAN_BE_PROCESSED(), proceed as though no workers can
> > be launched.
>
> >> That could even allow us to revert the
> >> planner change, which would simplify testing of the executor change.
>
> > True.
>
> Here's a proposed patch along that line. I left the test case from
> ac04aa84a alone, since it works perfectly well to test this way too.
>
> We could argue about whether or not to revert the planner change.
> But I'd prefer to do so, because as things stand it creates a
> hard-to-reason-about source of plan instability.
Looks perfect. Thank you.
