On Wed, 15 Apr 2026 at 14:30, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.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.
David
