| From: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Chao Li <li(dot)evan(dot)chao(at)gmail(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Add bms_offset_members() function for bitshifting Bitmapsets |
| Date: | 2026-04-18 07:49:57 |
| Message-ID: | CAApHDvrp6JwOVH3VwMB=YL3p97F5_0hKJc7J8zHRKuyhKru1dA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 at 14:33, David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 at 14:30, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >
> > David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com> 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
| Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
|---|---|---|
| v2-0001-Introduce-bms_offset_members-function.patch | application/octet-stream | 20.4 KB |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Rowley | 2026-04-18 07:53:40 | Re: Add bms_offset_members() function for bitshifting Bitmapsets |
| Previous Message | Xuneng Zhou | 2026-04-18 04:19:50 | Re: test: avoid redundant standby catchup in 049_wait_for_lsn |