Re: array support patch phase 1 patch

Tom Lane wrote:
> Joe Conway  writes:
>>What if we modify equality_oper() and friends to do the check for us 
>>when argtype is a varlena array?
> 
>>If an array type is checked for an ordering operator, its element type 
>>now *must* have an ordering operator in order for the result to be 
>>meaningful. Same goes for ordering_oper().
> 
> That sounds more like a solution.  Is there anyplace else we need to
> push knowledge of this into?  (Offhand I can't think of any, but ...)
> 

Poking around:

1) I found that addTargetToSortList() uses compatible_oper_opid() if it 
is given a specific opname, but ordering_oper_opid (which in turn uses 
ordering_oper()) if not. Do you know in what cases will 
addTargetToSortList() get called with a specific opname? If it's only 
for "non-standard" operators, then we should be fine here I'd think.

2) AlterTableAddForeignKeyConstraint() uses oper() to check directly for 
an "=" operator. This should probably be changed anyway to 
equality_oper(), shouldn't it?

3) process_implied_equality() uses compatible_oper() to directly obtain
    "=" operator. This should also be changed anyway to equality_oper(),
    shouldn't it?

4) SelectSortFunction() might need work -- I'll have to study that one
    more.

That's all I could find that looked suspect.

Joe