"Kevin J Bluck" <kevin.bluck@netce.com> writes:
> But if RETURN TABLE doesn't respect typemods, perhaps it shouldn't be
> legal to specify them in that clause?
Yeah, possibly. CREATE FUNCTION has historically accepted (and then
discarded) typmod information for all function parameter and result
types; RETURNS TABLE doesn't seem particularly different from other
cases here. We could tighten that up, but again it's not clear whether
the probable ensuing application breakage would be worth the reduction
in astonishment quotient.
> I do think Pavel G. has a real bug with the char thing, though.
No, it's exactly the same thing: we're accepting and then throwing away
the typmod. The fact that it's implicit rather than written out doesn't
change that.
char would be a particularly nasty case if we did reject typmod
specifications for function arguments/results, because there is no
standard syntax for specifying char without a defined max length.
You'd have to fall back to writing "bpchar", which isn't going to
make people happy either...
regards, tom lane
