Fang Xing

> I'd like to understand why the production code is OOMing here, and if there's anything we can do to fix that, rather than working around it in the test....

> For folks playing along - we're pretty sure we're going to reduce the memory usage here. That's not the thing holding this up. The real question is "why didn't...

> > I might be wrong, but these are the main reason that I found so far that BytesRefBlockBuilder doesn't adjust circuit breaker size properly. > > `BytesRefBlockBuilder` is indeed...

Close this as #108195 resolved the #107756

This should resolve #107756 .

> This needs more work. In its current form it's breaking bwc since it changes the declaration for anonymous / un-named params from `values: [1,2,3, "string"]` to `values: {[value:1], ...`...

> @fang-xing-esql @nik9000 any reason not to backport to 8.14? :) It will be backported to 8.14 :).

> I think it's pretty close! I left a bunch of picky comments and ways that might help with checkstyle. Also, it probably wants a unit test - it might...

> Thanks @fang-xing-esql, looks pretty good so far. I agree with Nik's observations; I just left one additional comment on how much control we want to delegate to the function...

Close this PR, as the replacement PR is merged.