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

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/