Re: citext operator precedence fix

> But I don't think we're required to support that case.  If the user
> does a non-standard install, it's their job to deal with the fallout.

Well, I'll write the script anyway, since *I* need it.  I'm installing
this on a 9.0 database which will be later upgraded to 9.1.

However, before I write all this, I'd like to settle the question of
acceptability.  What do I need to do to make it OK to break backwards
compatibility for this?  I feel strongly that I'm correcting it to the
behavior users expect, but that's not statistically backed.

I don't want to spend several hours writing scripts so that it can be
rejected *for that reason*.

-- 
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com