Re: [HACKERS] update_pg_pwd

I wrote:
> The thing I'm unhappy about is that "0" is being overloaded way too far
> as a function argument/result type in pg_proc.  Currently it could mean:
>     * unused position in proargtype array;
>     * erroneous definition;
>     * "C string" parameter to a type input function (but, for who
>       knows what reason, C string outputs from type-output functions
>       are represented differently);
>     * user proc returning some kind of tuple;
>     * user proc returning nothing in particular;
> and who knows what else.

Almost forgot:* function accepting any data type whatever
(I think COUNT() is the only one at present).
        regards, tom lane