Re: [HACKERS] update_pg_pwd

Tom Lane wrote:

> wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> > One last point though. The comment says it's using lower case
> > name now to be callable from SQL, what it isn't because of
> > it's Opaque return type in pg_proc.
>
> > pgsql=> select update_pg_pwd();
> > ERROR: typeidTypeRelid: Invalid type - oid = 0
>
> > Is that a wanted (needed) capability or should I better
> > change the comment to reflect it's real nature?
>
> What would you expect the SELECT to produce here? I think the error
> message is pretty poor, but I can't really see OPAQUE functions being
> allowed in expression contexts...

Exactly that error message, you know as I know why it should
happen. What I wanted to know is, if there could be a reason
to make it callable via such a SELECT, to force it to do it's
action, or if that's just an old comment that's wrong now.

> I don't really like the description of these functions as returning
> something "OPAQUE", anyway, particularly when that is already being
> (mis) used for user-defined type input/output functions. I wish
> they were declared as returning something like "TUPLE".

Yes, that would clearly separate trigger proc's from
functions. And for unused arguments I would suggest VOID.

But I expect (hope), you want to do this all during the fmgr
redesign, not right now, no?

Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me. #
#========================================= wieck(at)debis(dot)com (Jan Wieck) #