On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 at 14:30, Tom Lane <[email protected]> wrote: > > David Rowley <[email protected]> writes: > > I'd not considered surprise-prone as an aspect. I understand we have > > bms_join and bms_union, which do the same thing if you only care about > > the value of the result and not what happens to the inputs. > > Sure, but bms_join is an optional optimization of the far safer > bms_union operation. It bothers me to create the optimized case > but not the base case.
Hmm, yeah. That seems like a good argument for making a new set. I'll go make it so. David
