Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway
Date
Msg-id 3479601.1669142665@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway
Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway
List pgsql-hackers
I wrote:
> Still wondering if there's really no CHECK_FOR_INTERRUPT anywhere
> else in this loop.

I did some experimentation using the test case Jakub presented
to start with, and verified that that loop does respond promptly
to control-C even in HEAD.  So there are CFI(s) in the loop as
I thought, and we don't need another.

What we do need is some more work on nearby comments.  I'll
see about that and push it.

            regards, tom lane



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway
Next
From: Erik Rijkers
Date:
Subject: Re: New docs chapter on Transaction Management and related changes