On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 3:20 PM Amit Langote <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 12:57 PM Amit Kapila <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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. > > I have now reverted batching in REL_19_STABLE after pushing the > snapshot fix for the per-row path to master and REL_19_STABLE. and . > Batching remains in master for now. > > With that, I've marked the following open items as fixed: > > #1 RI fast-path batching fails during nested SET CONSTRAINTS > #2 RI fast-path batching wrongly used by ALTER TABLE inside a trigger > #3 Stale snapshot in RI fast-path leads to spurious failure > > The fixes for #1 and #2 still need to be applied to master. Those > patches are posted at [1]. > > Later today, I will push the attached patches addressing Amit's review > in this thread to both branches. 0001 clarifies the tuple-lock result > handling comments. 0002 fixes the collation mismatch by falling back > to SPI. There are separate versions of 0002 for REL_19_STABLE, with > batching removed, and master, where both the per-row and batched paths > need the fallback.
I've pushed 0001. I'm holding off on 0002 until tomorrow to give Amit some time to comment if he wants to. -- Thanks, Amit Langote
