Horton

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

Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
Cc: Simon Riggs <simon.riggs@enterprisedb.com>, Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>, pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org, Jakub Wartak <jakub.wartak@enterprisedb.com>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Date: 2022-11-22T19:02:16Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Nov 22, 2022 at 1:44 PM 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.

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

Commits

  1. YA attempt at taming worst-case behavior of get_actual_variable_range.

  2. Improve performance of get_actual_variable_range with recently-dead tuples.

  3. Use SnapshotDirty rather than an active snapshot to probe index endpoints.