Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Simon Riggs
Subject Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway
Date
Msg-id CANbhV-ETTZRJc9uE=gWXNaQ7tGQkNQNVrOK+NKJziN9dkBNO+Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 at 18:44, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> 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.

Thanks for checking. Sorry for not responding earlier.

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

Thanks; nicely streamlined.

-- 
Simon Riggs                http://www.EnterpriseDB.com/

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: T Adachi
Date:
Subject: Does pg_rman support PG15?
Next
From: Nikolay Shaplov
Date:
Subject: Re: TAP output format in pg_regress