Re: CALL versus procedures with output-only arguments

I wrote:
> Hmm, actually we could make step 2 a shade tighter: if a candidate
> routine is a function, match against proargtypes.  If it's a procedure,
> match against coalesce(proallargtypes, proargtypes).  If we find
> multiple matches, raise ambiguity error.

Where do we stand on this topic?

I'm willing to have a go at implementing things that way, but
time's a-wasting.

            regards, tom lane