Re: Current enums patch

Tom Lane wrote:
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
>> If you want to review or test the feature, the attached patch can be
>> used as a replacement for the portion that affects parse_coerce.c, and
>> with this it compiles and passes regression. I think it's correct but it
>> should still be OKed by at least one Tom. :-)

 > Barring objection from Tom D, I'll start with this version.

OK, I've now had a chance to look at Andrew's update of the patch, which
just seems to pass through the new arrayCoerce parameter to the
find_coercion_pathway calls. It almost doesn't matter what gets passed
in: find_coercion_pathway should never set that to true in our calls to
it in the enum code, as we're passing ANYENUMOID through to the recursed
call and that'll never hit the array coercion branch.

In summary: looks good to me!

Cheers

Tom