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.
