MIME-Version: 1.0
References: 
 <CA+HiwqFfAY_ZFqN8wcAEMw71T9hM_kA8UtyHaZZEZtuT3UyogA@mail.gmail.com>
 <68f3771f-91f5-4cb7-b1de-74d9abbf0b96@vondra.me>
 <CA+HiwqGqeS_94wxiYa8VpymiR_OtFPKDSpX+Me=MYWO45f5yig@mail.gmail.com>
 <dbce8def-e817-4e70-a9cb-e62574724d95@vondra.me>
 <CA+HiwqGM0ZTeVHicSkGnCp-2U-jvU-KBQCkPJ0N7nAj_c2LjZg@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: 
 <CA+HiwqGM0ZTeVHicSkGnCp-2U-jvU-KBQCkPJ0N7nAj_c2LjZg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Daniil Davydov <3danissimo@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2025 21:32:19 +0700
Message-ID: 
 <CAJDiXgh7vJAu39QkEk4TiJexPVsM6X6RXeNy7dNX9KjhX_5=9A@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Batching in executor
To: Amit Langote <amitlangote09@gmail.com>
Cc: Tomas Vondra <tomas@vondra.me>,
 PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CAJDiXgh7vJAu39QkEk4TiJexPVsM6X6RXeNy7dNX9KjhX_5%3D9A%40mail.gmail.com>
Precedence: bulk

Hi,

As far as I understand, this work partially overlaps with what we did in the
thread [1] (in short - we introduce support for batching within the ModifyTable
node). Am I correct?

It's worth saying that the patch in that thread is already quite old -
now I have
an improved implementation and tests for it (as well as performance
measurements). But the basic idea and design remained unchanged.

Maybe we can combine approaches? I haven't reviewed patches in this thread
yet, but I'll try to do it in the near future.

[1] https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/CALj2ACVi9eTRYR%3Dgdca5wxtj3Kk_9q9qVccxsS1hngTGOCjPwQ%40mail.gmail.com

--
Best regards,
Daniil Davydov