Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gp0Bf-00035R-5r for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 00:26:35 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gp0Bd-0003lo-Pw for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 00:26:33 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gp0Bd-0003lh-If for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 00:26:33 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gp0Bb-0004On-J0 for pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org; Thu, 31 Jan 2019 00:26:33 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x0V0QRse014797; Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:26:28 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Elvis Pranskevichus cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org Subject: Re: [PATCH] Allow anonymous rowtypes in function return column definition In-reply-to: <5580575.Bn2KaDtcXf@hammer.magicstack.net> References: <11038447.kQ5A9Uj5xi@hammer.magicstack.net> <1691096.MngoxCRQ0q@hammer.magicstack.net> <19439.1548889181@sss.pgh.pa.us> <5580575.Bn2KaDtcXf@hammer.magicstack.net> Comments: In-reply-to Elvis Pranskevichus message dated "Wed, 30 Jan 2019 18:35:25 -0500" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <14795.1548894387.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 19:26:27 -0500 Message-ID: <14796.1548894387@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk Elvis Pranskevichus writes: > On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 5:59:41 PM EST Tom Lane wrote: >> I still found this pretty disjointed. After a bit of thought I >> propose the attached reformulation, which has the callers just tell >> the routines which types to allow explicitly, with the justification >> comments living at the call sites instead of within the routines. > This is a much better formulation, thank you! OK, pushed. regards, tom lane