On ons, 2011-06-08 at 11:09 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> The omission of collection_type_identifier from the docs is clearly a
> doc bug. However, it looks to me like you've identified an error in the
> view definition, not only a doc bug. I think the values of the
> dtd_identifier and collection_type_identifier columns are swapped, ie,
> we ought to be prepending 'a' to the collection_type_identifier not the
> dtd_identifier. As far as I can tell from the spec, dtd_identifier
> ought to be the identifier of the element type, while
> collection_type_identifier should be a made-up identifier for the array
> type. That would make the sample query given in the docs correct.
Yes, we need to switch those two columns around and change the
documentation.
> If my analysis is correct, we really ought to try to fix this in time
> for beta2, since there's no way to fix it without a forced initdb.
I can take care of this later today.
