| From: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, Jakub Wartak <jakub(dot)wartak(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)alvh(dot)no-ip(dot)org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway |
| Date: | 2022-11-24 16:49:55 |
| Message-ID: | CANbhV-ETTZRJc9uE=gWXNaQ7tGQkNQNVrOK+NKJziN9dkBNO+Q@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, 22 Nov 2022 at 18:44, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)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/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Nikolay Shaplov | 2022-11-24 17:07:29 | Re: TAP output format in pg_regress |
| Previous Message | T Adachi | 2022-11-24 16:31:12 | Does pg_rman support PG15? |