On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 at 14:33, David Rowley <[email protected]> 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.
Patch attached for the version that creates a new set rather than modifying the input set in-place. David
v2-0001-Introduce-bms_offset_members-function.patch
Description: Binary data
