At 2005-05-18 23:31:27 -0400, tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
>
> Doesn't that change cause the opr_sanity regression test to complain?

Yes, it does. I'm sorry I didn't notice.

As far as I can tell, updating the test as below is the correct thing
to do.

-- ams

*** src/test/regress/expected/opr_sanity.out~ 2005-05-19 10:16:47.821895189 +0530
--- src/test/regress/expected/opr_sanity.out 2005-05-19 10:17:05.336835847 +0530
***************
*** 110,121 ****
(p1.proargtypes[0] < p2.proargtypes[0]);
proargtypes | proargtypes
-------------+-------------
25 | 1042
25 | 1043
1114 | 1184
1560 | 1562
2277 | 2283
! (5 rows)

SELECT DISTINCT p1.proargtypes[1], p2.proargtypes[1]
FROM pg_proc AS p1, pg_proc AS p2
--- 110,122 ----
(p1.proargtypes[0] < p2.proargtypes[0]);
proargtypes | proargtypes
-------------+-------------
+ 17 | 25
25 | 1042
25 | 1043
1114 | 1184
1560 | 1562
2277 | 2283
! (6 rows)

SELECT DISTINCT p1.proargtypes[1], p2.proargtypes[1]
FROM pg_proc AS p1, pg_proc AS p2

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match