Re: Proposal to introduce a shuffle function to intarray extension

I wrote:
> On the whole, I'd vote for calling it shuffle(), and expecting that
> we'd also use that name for any future generic version.

Actually ... is there a reason to bother with an intarray version
at all, rather than going straight for an in-core anyarray function?
It's not obvious to me that an int4-only version would have
major performance advantages.

            regards, tom lane