Re: Anonymous code blocks

Tom Lane napsal(a):
> Andrew Dunstan <andrew(at)dunslane(dot)net> writes:
>
>> Dimitri Fontaine wrote:
>>
>>> So here are the major points about this patch:
>>> - it's missing the returns declaration syntax (default value could be
>>> returns void?)
>>> - it would be much more friendly to users if it had a default output
>>> for queries, the returned object seems a good fit
>>>
>
>
>> Really? That wasn't my expectation at all. I expected that the code
>> would in effect be always returning void. I think you're moving the
>> goalposts a bit here. I don't think we need a RETURNS clause on it for
>> it to be useful.
>>
>
> I think adding onto DO capabilities is something we could do later
> if demand warrants. I'd prefer to underdesign it for starters than
> to encrust it with features that might not be needed.
>

Right, RETURNS can be added later without breaking any existing code for
users so no problem there (same goes for removing the requirement of
BEGIN ... END for example).

> BTW, what happens with the current patch if you try to do a RETURN?
>

Throws same error as function defined with RETURNS void.

--
Regards
Petr Jelinek (PJMODOS)