Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway

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