Re: array support patch phase 1 patch

Joe Conway wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> I'm not sure though that any of these cases really are of concern. Do
>> we care in any of them whether failure to find the operator is postponed
>> till runtime? ANALYZE needs to know because it has a fallback path if
>> there's no "<" operator, but ORDER BY does not.
>
> I was thinking the same thing and hoping you'd say that. I'll send in an
> updated patch later this morning once I've done a bit more testing.

Here is an updated array-combo patch. Only change is that this one moves
the check for missing array element type equality and ordering operators
into equality_oper() and ordering_oper(), per recent discussion.

The patch applys cleanly on cvs as of this morning, compiles without any
(new) warnings, initdb's fine, and passes all 90 regression tests.

Please apply.

Thanks,

Joe