(Actually, it works as a plain statement too, but I didn't document that
because it seems a bit useless.)  Unify VariableResetStmt with
VariableSetStmt, and clean up some ancient cruft in the representation of
same.

This business with two independent build systems does kinda suck.

initcap style --- the vast majority of the existing descriptions do not use
an initial cap.  I didn't change places where the first word was all-cap.

initdb not forced because this doesn't change any regression test results.

been shown to be sensitive to concurrent autovacuum.  Per Alvaro.

operator-family rewrite.  I had mistakenly supposed that these could use the
pg_amproc entries for text[] and inet[] respectively.  However, binary
compatibility of the underlying types does not make two array types binary
compatible (since they must differ in the header field that gives the element
type OID), and so the index support code doesn't consider those entries
applicable.  Add back the missing pg_amproc entries, and add an opr_sanity
query to try to catch such mistakes in future.  Per report from Gregory
Maxwell.

There are still some loose ends: I didn't do anything about the SET FROM
CURRENT idea yet, and it's not real clear whether we are happy with the
interaction of SET LOCAL with function-local settings.  The documentation
is a bit spartan, too.

regardless of the number of tuples involved, it's incorrect to skip it
when memtupcount = 1; the number of cycles saved is minuscule anyway.
An alternative solution would be to pull the state changes out to the
call site in tuplesort_performsort, but keeping them near the corresponding
changes in make_bounded_heap seems marginally cleaner.  Noticed by
Greg Stark.

the number of rows likely to be produced by a query such as
	SELECT * FROM t1 LEFT JOIN t2 USING (key) WHERE t2.key IS NULL;
What this is doing is selecting for t1 rows with no match in t2, and thus
it may produce a significant number of rows even if the t2.key table column
contains no nulls at all.  8.2 thinks the table column's null fraction is
relevant and thus may estimate no rows out, which results in terrible plans
if there are more joins above this one.  A proper fix for this will involve
passing much more information about the context of a clause to the selectivity
estimator functions than we ever have.  There's no time left to write such a
patch for 8.3, and it wouldn't be back-patchable into 8.2 anyway.  Instead,
put in an ad-hoc test to defeat the normal table-stats-based estimation when
an IS NULL test is evaluated at an outer join, and just use a constant
estimate instead --- I went with 0.5 for lack of a better idea.  This won't
catch every case but it will catch the typical ways of writing such queries,
and it seems unlikely to make things worse for other queries.

Some alignment cleanups.

generating the tuples has resjunk output columns.  This is not possible for
simple table scans but can happen when evaluating a whole-row Var for a view.
Per example from Patryk Kordylewski.  The problem exists back to 8.0 but
I'm not going to risk back-patching further than 8.2 because of the many
changes in this area.

tool chains).

"index" entries for GIN/GiST.

entire section, per Peter.

entries in textsearch.sgml.

processing routines.  Per Heikki.

older SGML toolchains.

sets for outer joins, in the light of bug #3588 and additional thought and
experimentation.  The original methodology was fatally flawed for nests of
more than two outer joins: it got the relationships between adjacent joins
right, but didn't always come to the right conclusions about whether a join
could be interchanged with one two or more levels below it.  This was largely
caused by a mistaken idea that we should use the min_lefthand + min_righthand
sets of a sub-join as the minimum left or right input set of an upper join
when we conclude that the sub-join can't commute with the upper one.  If
there's a still-lower join that the sub-join *can* commute with, this method
led us to think that that one could commute with the topmost join; which it
can't.  Another problem (not directly connected to bug #3588) was that
make_outerjoininfo's processing-order-dependent method for enforcing outer
join identity #3 didn't work right: if we decided that join A could safely
commute with lower join B, we dropped all information about sub-joins under B
that join A could perhaps not safely commute with, because we removed B's
entire min_righthand from A's.

To fix, make an explicit computation of all inner join combinations that occur
below an outer join, and add to that the full syntactic relsets of any lower
outer joins that we determine it can't commute with.  This method gives much
more direct enforcement of the outer join rearrangement identities, and it
turns out not to cost a lot of additional bookkeeping.

Thanks to Richard Harris for the bug report and test case.

case, per Florian Pflug.
Not back-patched since it's unclear that anyone but me still cares ...

to be more logical.

the main documentation, out of its own text search chapter.

checks for individual-table-size functions, since anyone in the database could
get approximate values from pg_class.relpages anyway.  Allow database-size to
users with CONNECT privilege for the target database (note that this is
granted by default).  Allow tablespace-size if the user has CREATE privilege
on the tablespace (which is *not* granted by default), or if the tablespace is
the default tablespace for the current database (since we treat that as
implicitly allowing use of the tablespace).

read from the temp file didn't match the file length reported by ftello(),
the wrong variable's value was printed, and so the message made no sense.
Clean up a couple other coding infelicities while at it.

restart point.  Per suggestion from Simon Riggs.

SELECT on the target table.  Per discussion.

even if the "deadlock detected" ERROR message is suppressed by an exception
catcher.  Be clearer about the event sequence when a soft deadlock is fixed:
the fixing process might or might not still have to wait, so log that
separately.  Fix race condition when someone releases us from the lock partway
through printing all this junk --- we'd not get confused about our state, but
the log message sequence could have been misleading, ie, a "still waiting"
message with no subsequent "acquired" message.  Greg Stark and Tom Lane.

section makes a little more sense.