On 19 November 2014 23:29, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> writes: >> 2014-11-19 23:54 GMT+01:00 Tom Lane <t...@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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers