On 11/22/21 11:15, Tom Lane wrote:
> Yup, that's intentional, and documented.
I think I found where it's documented; nothing under argmode/column_type
/column_name, but just enough under rettype to entail the current behavior.
> It seems more useful to allow you to declare a scalar-returning function
> in this style, if you wish, than to make it mean a one-component record.
Would that usefulness be diminished any by allowing the currently-rejected
explicit RECORD syntax to be accepted and explicitly mean record?
Regards,
-Chap
