On 11/22/21 11:15, Tom Lane wrote: > Yup, that's intentional, and documented.
I think I found where it's documented; nothing under argmode/column_type /column_name, but just enough under rettype to entail the current behavior. > It seems more useful to allow you to declare a scalar-returning function > in this style, if you wish, than to make it mean a one-component record. Would that usefulness be diminished any by allowing the currently-rejected explicit RECORD syntax to be accepted and explicitly mean record? Regards, -Chap
