Reject duplicate column names in foreign key referenced-columns lists.

Such cases are disallowed by the SQL spec, and even if we wanted to allow
them, the semantics seem ambiguous: how should the FK columns be matched up
with the columns of a unique index?  (The matching could be significant in
the presence of opclasses with different notions of equality, so this issue
isn't just academic.)  However, our code did not previously reject such
cases, but instead would either fail to match to any unique index, or
generate a bizarre opclass-lookup error because of sloppy thinking in the
index-matching code.

David Rowley
Fix conversion of domains to JSON in 9.3 and 9.2.

In commit 0ca6bda8e7501947c05f30c127f6d12ff90b5a64, I rewrote the json.c
code that decided how to convert SQL data types into JSON values, so that
it no longer relied on typcategory which is a pretty untrustworthy guide
to the output format of user-defined datatypes.  However, I overlooked the
fact that CREATE DOMAIN inherits typcategory from the base type, so that
the old coding did have the desirable property of treating domains like
their base types --- but only in some cases, because not all its decisions
turned on typcategory.  The version of the patch that went into 9.4 and
up did a getBaseType() call to ensure that domains were always treated
like their base types, but I omitted that from the older branches, because
it would result in a behavioral change for domains over json or hstore;
a change that's arguably a bug fix, but nonetheless a change that users
had not asked for.  What I overlooked was that this meant that domains
over numerics and boolean were no longer treated like their base types,
and that we *did* get a complaint about, ie bug #11103 from David Grelaud.
So let's do the getBaseType() call in the older branches as well, to
restore their previous behavior in these cases.  That means 9.2 and 9.3
will now make these decisions just like 9.4.  We could probably kluge
things to still ignore the domain's base type if it's json etc, but that
seems a bit silly.