On 15.04.26 04:33, David Rowley wrote:
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.
Depending on what you end up doing, maybe a sprinkling of pg_nodiscard
could be appropriate.
