Re: [PATCH] Allow anonymous rowtypes in function return column definition

Elvis Pranskevichus <el@prans.net> writes:
> On Wednesday, January 30, 2019 5:59:41 PM EST Tom Lane wrote:
>> I still found this pretty disjointed.  After a bit of thought I
>> propose the attached reformulation, which has the callers just tell
>> the routines which types to allow explicitly, with the justification
>> comments living at the call sites instead of within the routines.

> This is a much better formulation, thank you!

OK, pushed.

            regards, tom lane