On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 9:12 PM Melanie Plageman <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 9, 2026 at 8:26 AM Amit Langote <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > That still leaves your concern about whether the per-row path is > > sufficiently solid for v19. The snapshot fixes and Amit's recent > > collation report show that there are differences from SPI that we (I) > > missed. The proposed collation fix falls back to SPI when the > > referenced index and column collations differ. I still propose > > retaining the per-row path, but agree that its readiness needs to be > > assessed separately from the decision to remove batching. > > I think a good start would be to revert the batching ASAP so that we > can consider the state after independently. >
BTW, it is not clear to me from this response whether it should be reverted for both 19 and 20 or just 19? I feel the reason to keep in 20 could be that it needs some (known) adjustments/bug-fixes and more testing but if there are still larger design issues, it will be better to revert even from 20. I was planning to evaluate that part but that needs more time, so it is better to first revert batching from 19, fix some reported issues for per-row optimization and evaluate whether it has any serious issues and make a decision based on that. Then independently, we can evaluate the batching state for 20 and take a call. -- With Regards, Amit Kapila.
