On Thu, 9 May 2024 at 06:24, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > I like alternative-2.patch a lot better, not least because it > only adds cycles when join removal actually fires. Basically > this is putting the onus on the data structure modifier to > cope with shared bitmapsets, rather than trying to say that > sharing is disallowed. > > Thoughts?
I'm fine with this one as it's the same as what I already mentioned earlier. I had imagined doing bms_del_member(bms_copy ... but maybe the compiler is able to optimise away the additional store. Likely, it does not matter much as pallocing memory likely adds far more overhead anyway. David
