AK wrote > Kevin, > > I do see your logic now, but this thing is a common mistake - it means > that this seems counter-intuitive to some people. What would happen if we > applied Occam's razor and just removed this rule? > > All existing code would continue to work as is, and we would have one less > rule to memorize. That would make PostgreSql a slightly better product, > right?
I'm somewhat on the fence for this but am leaning toward maintaining status-quo. Mostly because of the analogy with "IF ... END IF;" versus the SQL BEGIN; command which is a entirely separate construct. I would maybe change the documentation so that instead of simply dictating a rule we explain why the syntax is the way it is - like this thread is doing. If they consciously omit the semi-colon hopefully they also understand that what they are beginning is a code-block in plpgsql as opposed to an SQL transaction. That said, technical purity isn't always a good answer. I'd be inclined to let someone passionate enough about the idea implement it an critique instead of dis-allowing it outright; but in the end that is likely to result in the same end. David J. -- View this message in context: http://postgresql.1045698.n5.nabble.com/why-semicolon-after-begin-is-not-allowed-in-postgresql-tp5779905p5780222.html Sent from the PostgreSQL - hackers mailing list archive at Nabble.com. -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (email@example.com) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers