Re: CALL optional in PL/pgSQL

From: Heikki Linnakangas <hlinnaka(at)iki(dot)fi>
To: Andrew Dunstan <andrew(dot)dunstan(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Pavel Stehule <pavel(dot)stehule(at)gmail(dot)com>, Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: CALL optional in PL/pgSQL
Date: 2018-04-05 08:11:50
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On 27/03/18 03:00, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 2, 2018 at 2:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> I think this is an actively bad idea. It introduces an inherent ambiguity
>> into the grammar; for instance
>> PERFORM (2);
>> now has two valid interpretations. The only way to resolve that is with
>> heuristics or treating a bunch more words as reserved keywords, neither of
>> which are appetizing. (I didn't look to see which way Peter did it, but
>> his description of his patch as "not very pretty" doesn't fill me with
>> happiness.) And it would likely cause headaches down the road whenever
>> we attempt to add new syntax to plpgsql.
>> I think we should reject the idea.
> Well, the upside would be increased Oracle compatibility. I don't
> think that's worthless.
> I haven't dug deeply into it, but Peter's patch didn't look
> desperately ugly to me at first glance.

I don't much like this either. The ambiguity it introduces in the
grammar is bad. I'll mark this as rejected in the commitfest.

- Heikki

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Aleksandr Parfenov 2018-04-05 08:12:56 Re: Flexible configuration for full-text search
Previous Message Konstantin Knizhnik 2018-04-05 08:03:58 Re: Postgres stucks in deadlock detection