Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Hm. I concur that this special-case code is failing to consider the
>> possibility that the target type is domain-over-array-type rather than
>> just array-type. I think though that this patch is a bit of a kluge,
>> because it delivers a mislabeled expression tree. The result of the
>> transformArrayExpr() is not really of type myintarray. What it is is
>> a plain int[] value; we shouldn't label it as being already myintarray,
>> because it hasn't passed the domain checks. At the moment there is
>> probably not any visible effect of that, but in the future it could
>> lead to misoptimization, so I think it's important to get it right.
>>
>> My inclination is to apply getBaseTypeAndTypmod to the targetType and
>> pass that as the array type to transformArrayExpr, then instead of
>> considering the job done, fall through to transformTypeCast, which will
>> either do nothing or attach a domain coercion node.
>
> Hmm, yeah that's more accurate.
Ok, committed another patch doing exactly that.
-- Heikki Linnakangas EnterpriseDB http://www.enterprisedb.com
