On 3/7/17 19:14, Andres Freund wrote:
>> Why shouldn't the function itself also depend on the components of its
>> return type?
> Because that'd make it impossible to change the return type components -
> if the return type is baked into the view that's necessary, but for a
> "freestanding function" it's not. If you e.g. have a function that just
> returns a table's rows, it'd certainly be annoying if that'd prevent you
> from dropping columns.
I think functions breaking when the return type is fiddled with is
actually a not-uncommon problem in practice. It would be nice if that
could be addressed. Not necessarily in this patch, but I would like to
keep the options open. Comments from others would be welcome on this.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
