| From: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> |
|---|---|
| To: | David Rowley <dgrowleyml(at)gmail(dot)com>, 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: | 2026-04-15 19:17:12 |
| Message-ID: | ee61a3c6-5d99-4b3e-87de-4a01eed449b2@eisentraut.org |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 15.04.26 04:33, David Rowley 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.
Depending on what you end up doing, maybe a sprinkling of pg_nodiscard
could be appropriate.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Bruce Momjian | 2026-04-15 19:27:06 | Re: First draft of PG 19 release notes |
| Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2026-04-15 19:12:51 | Re: Reduce build times of pg_trgm GIN indexes |