Andres Freund <andres@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> On 2014-06-03 10:37:53 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
>> It hasn't even got a comment saying why changes here should
>> receive any scrutiny; moreover, it's not in a file where changes would be
>> likely to excite suspicion. (Probably it should be in opr_sanity, if
>> we're going to have such a thing at all.)
> I've written up the attached patch that moves the test to opr_sanity and
> adds a littlebit of commentary. Will apply unless somebody protests in
> the next 24h or so.
+1, but as long as we're touching this, could we make the output be
SELECT oid::regprocedure, prorettype::regtype FROM pg_proc ...
Same information, but more readable IMO. (I'm not really sure why
we need to show prorettype here at all, btw.)
regards, tom lane