I wrote:
> The crash you found is sufficient reason to back-patch 0001, even
> though it changes results in some non-crash cases. I'm less sure
> about whether to back-patch 0002. If anyone can find a crash
> case involving ARRAY[], I think we should do so.
After sleeping on it I concluded that both changes should be
back-patched: if anyone were depending on ARRAY[] over int2vector
or oidvector, you'd think they'd have noticed and reported the
broken cases by now. Hence, pushed as one patch.
regards, tom lane