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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (firstname.lastname@example.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers