On Fri, Jun 21, 2024 at 8:41 AM Maxwell Dreytser < maxwell.dreyt...@assistek.com> wrote:
> On Friday, June 21, 2024 11:28 AM David G. Johnston < > david.g.johns...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > In short, the system doesn't generate the information you need, where > you need it, to tie these pieces together. Modifying existing elements of > the backend protocol is not presently in the cards. > > From my perspective this is clearly a bug as there is no way to define a > function in a way that provides enough data to the reader. > Quick search turned up this prior thread: https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/19323.1245720832%40sss.pgh.pa.us Based upon that unargued point the only bug here is in the documentation, leaving the reader to assume that some effort will be made to chain together a function returns clause to a physical table through that table's automatically-generated composite type. We don't and never will modify the existing protocol message semantics in that respect. David J.
