Teodor Sigaev <teodor@sigaev.ru> writes:
> May I eliminate SETOF from Typename and leave it
> only for RETURNS?
Why do you want to?
I think the reason it's in Typename is the assumption that in future
we would try to extend the applicability of SETOF, not restrict it.
For instance I can see reasons for wanting SETOF on a function's input
parameter (to pass it a whole table or select result in one call).
regards, tom lane