Re: [HACKERS] update_pg_pwd

Tom Lane wrote:

> wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) writes:
> >     One last point though. The comment says it's using lower case
> >     name now to be callable from SQL, what it  isn't  because  of
> >     it's Opaque return type in pg_proc.
>
> >         pgsql=> select update_pg_pwd();
> >         ERROR:  typeidTypeRelid: Invalid type - oid = 0
>
> >     Is  that  a  wanted  (needed)  capability  or should I better
> >     change the comment to reflect it's real nature?
>
> What would you expect the SELECT to produce here?  I think the error
> message is pretty poor, but I can't really see OPAQUE functions being
> allowed in expression contexts...

    Exactly  that error message, you know as I know why it should
    happen.  What I wanted to know is, if there could be a reason
    to make it callable via such a SELECT, to force it to do it's
    action, or if that's just an old comment that's wrong now.

> I don't really like the description of these functions as returning
> something "OPAQUE", anyway, particularly when that is already being
> (mis) used for user-defined type input/output functions.  I wish
> they were declared as returning something like "TUPLE".

    Yes,  that  would  clearly  separate  trigger   proc's   from
    functions. And for unused arguments I would suggest VOID.

    But  I expect (hope), you want to do this all during the fmgr
    redesign, not right now, no?


Jan

--

#======================================================================#
# It's easier to get forgiveness for being wrong than for being right. #
# Let's break this rule - forgive me.                                  #
#========================================= wieck@debis.com (Jan Wieck) #