On Thu, 9 May 2024 at 06:24, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I like alternative-2.patch a lot better, not least because it
> only adds cycles when join removal actually fires. Basically
> this is putting the onus on the data structure modifier to
> cope with shared bitmapsets, rather than trying to say that
> sharing is disallowed.
>
> Thoughts?
I'm fine with this one as it's the same as what I already mentioned
earlier. I had imagined doing bms_del_member(bms_copy ... but maybe
the compiler is able to optimise away the additional store. Likely, it
does not matter much as pallocing memory likely adds far more overhead
anyway.
David
