Re: SQL-standard function body

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>
Cc: Julien Rouhaud <rjuju123(at)gmail(dot)com>, Noah Misch <noah(at)leadboat(dot)com>, Jaime Casanova <jcasanov(at)systemguards(dot)com(dot)ec>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: SQL-standard function body
Date: 2021-06-07 19:24:33
Message-ID: 982443.1623093873@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

I wrote:
> ... I tend to agree with Julien's position here. It seems really ugly
> to prohibit empty statements just for implementation convenience.
> However, the way I'd handle it is to have the grammar remove them,
> which is what it does in other contexts.

Concretely, I think the right fix is per attached.

Like Julien, I don't see any additional change in regression test outputs.
Maybe Peter thinks there should be some? But I think the reverse-listing
we get for functest_S_3a is fine.

regards, tom lane

Attachment Content-Type Size
fix-empty-statements-2.patch text/x-diff 1.5 KB

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Peter Eisentraut 2021-06-07 19:38:20 Re: Tid scan improvements
Previous Message Robert Haas 2021-06-07 19:02:12 Re: Race condition in recovery?