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

Поиск
Список
Период
Сортировка
От Tom Lane
Тема Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway
Дата
Msg-id 3479601.1669142665@sss.pgh.pa.us
обсуждение исходный текст
Ответ на Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Ответы Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway  (Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>)
Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway  (Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>)
Список pgsql-hackers
Дерево обсуждения 
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

В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления:

Предыдущее
От: Tom Lane
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: Damage control for planner's get_actual_variable_endpoint() runaway
Следующее
От: Erik Rijkers
Дата:
Сообщение: Re: New docs chapter on Transaction Management and related changes