On 19 November 2014 23:29, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@gmail.com> writes:
>> 2014-11-19 23:54 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
>>> The core of that complaint is that we'd have to make ASSERT a plpgsql
>>> reserved word, which is true enough as things stand today. However,
>>> why is it that plpgsql statement-introducing keywords need to be
>>> reserved?
>
>> Doesn't it close a doors to implement a procedures call without explicit
>> CALL statement (like PL/SQL) ?
>
> So, in order to leave the door open for implicit CALL (which nobody's
> ever proposed or tried to implement AFAIR), you're willing to see every
> other proposal for new plpgsql statements go down the drain due to
> objections to new reserved words? I think your priorities are skewed.
>
> (If we did want to allow implicit CALL, I suspect that things could be
> hacked so that it worked for any function name that wasn't already an
> unreserved keyword, anyway. So you'd be no worse off.)
Implictly CALLed procedures/function-that-return-void would be a great
feature for 9.5
Great proposal.
-- Simon Riggs http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services
