Andrew Dunstan <and...@dunslane.net> writes:
> On 5/23/21 8:01 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> Before I spend too much time on it though, I wanted to mention that
>> it includes undoing 2453ea142's decision to include OUT arguments
>> in pg_proc.proargtypes for procedures (but not for any other kind of
>> routine). I thought that was a terrible decision and I'm very happy
>> to revert it, but is anyone likely to complain loudly?
> Possibly, Will take a look. IIRC we have based some other things on this.
There's 9213462c5, which I *think* just needs to be reverted along
with much of 2453ea142. But I don't have a JDBC setup to check it
with.
regards, tom lane
