Re: Bug in CREATE FUNCTION with character type (CONFIRMED BUG)

2010/4/15 Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>:
> "Kevin J Bluck" <kevin(dot)bluck(at)netce(dot)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 think, so RETURNS TABLE can be modified for returning typmode
without significant problems - this function is called in table
context and I don't see any problematic use case.

Pavel

>
>> 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
>
> --
> Sent via pgsql-bugs mailing list (pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org)
> To make changes to your subscription:
> http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-bugs
>