Re: Record returning function accept not matched columns declaration

I wrote:
> I think we just need to flip things around so that we build the
> expected tupdesc from coldeflist if it's present, and only if not do
> we examine the expression.  The cases this might fail to catch should
> all have been handled at parse time in addRangeTableEntryForFunction,
> so we don't have to check again.

Here's a draft patch that fixes it that way.

I'm having mixed feelings about whether to back-patch this.  Somebody
might complain that we broke a working query in a minor release.
Assuming that the visible consequences are all pretty benign, as they
seem to be (noting that end-users won't see the assertion failure),
maybe the conservative course is to leave it unfixed in stable
branches.  However, I'm not totally convinced that the consequences
are all benign, so there would be a risk on that side.  Thoughts?

			regards, tom lane