On 26/11/13 12:13, David Johnston wrote:
Mark Kirkwood-2 wrote
Postgres supports many procedural languages (e.g plperl, plpython) and all
So in the case of plpgsql - it needs to follow the Ada grammar,
otherwise it would be useless.
I do not follow the "useless" conclusion - what, present day, does Ada got
to do with it? And the request is to alter only plpgsql, not "all the other
languages". To the casual end-user plpgsql is an internal language under
our full control and installed by default in all new releases. Is it really
unreasonable to expect us to design in some level of coordination between it
and SQL?
Cross-compatibility is a valid reason though I'm guessing with all the
inherent differences between our standard PL and other database's PLs that
making this change would not be a materially noticeable additional
incompatibility.
I guess I was thinking "useless as an example of a PL/SQL or Ada
compatible language", which I probably should have stated fully - sorry.
While we do add extra features to plpgsql we don't usually add
deliberately PL/SQL or Ada incompatible ones. Where we do, sometimes
might wish we had not (ISTR a discussion about PERFORM).
Other posters have pointed out that adding the semi colon to BEGIN
confuses its main reason for existence - indicating the start of a code
block, and would also confuse the casual reader about whether a code
block or transaction was starting. All in all a materially noticeable
incompatibility!
regards
Mark
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
