| From: | Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Simon Riggs <simon(dot)riggs(at)enterprisedb(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: | 2022-11-22 19:02:16 |
| Message-ID: | CA+TgmoZhERsYKD+w-rY=rJDu2OsY9GXGg4FaKj4Jj_LkPc5_XQ@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 1:44 PM 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.
OK. Although an extra CFI isn't such a bad thing, either.
> What we do need is some more work on nearby comments. I'll
> see about that and push it.
Great!
--
Robert Haas
EDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Regina Obe | 2022-11-22 19:03:14 | Re: [PATCH] Support % wildcard in extension upgrade filenames |
| Previous Message | Bruce Momjian | 2022-11-22 18:50:36 | Re: New docs chapter on Transaction Management and related changes |