Re: Revert RI fast-path batching from REL_19_STABLE - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Amit Langote
Subject Re: Revert RI fast-path batching from REL_19_STABLE
Date
Msg-id CA+HiwqGF=0OFdQh78mEkGXbgs371UL=ohEpzRNNPkfbMBOt6CQ@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread
In response to Re: Revert RI fast-path batching from REL_19_STABLE  (Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Thu, Oct 1, 2026 at 9:05 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Sep 10, 2026 at 3:20 PM Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
>
> I propose removing batching from master as well. The patch to do so is attached.
>
> I had hoped we could continue fixing the remaining issues on master,
> but delaying checks to accumulate a batch has implications that I
> haven't fully accounted for. For example, as mentioned upthread, Tomas
> reported to me off-list that other AFTER ROW triggers can modify the
> referenced table before a buffered check runs, changing its result
> compared with checking immediately.
>
> We could address that particular case by disabling batching when such
> triggers exist. I have also posted patches for other reported issues,
> but I'd prefer to step back and revert all the batching-related code
> for now. My ability to work on these fixes is also limited in the near
> term due to some personal circumstances.
>
> I'd still like to revisit batching in a separate proposal, or at least
> bring back some of the useful pieces removed by this revert, such as
> caching of opened relations and TupleTableSlots.
>
> Any objections to removing it from master for now?

Done.

--
Thanks, Amit Langote



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Manu
Date:
Subject: Re: Fix reindexdb with parallel index-level conrurrent run
Next
From: Manu
Date:
Subject: Re: doc: Document Linux cgroup memory limits