Re: Can the string literal syntax for function definitions please be dropped ?

On Mon, Oct 26, 2009 at 12:01 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:

> Timothy Madden <terminatorul(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > What I want is compatible with existing code and the current default
> > behavior. Just look for a LANGUAGE SQL declaration in the function
> > header (before the body).
>
> > If found expect the in-place definition of the function body to follow.
> > If not found expect a string literal that holds the function body to
> follow,
> > with the LANGUAGE declaration after (default behavior).
>
> This proposal is unfortunately complete nonsense, because it fails to
> address the question of how you figure out where the function body *ends*.
> We have to have a simple and not-language-specific rule for that. Even
> if the backend could be made smart enough to handle a variety of cases,
> we could hardly expect client-side code (like psql) to track all the
> cases. And psql does need to understand where the CREATE FUNCTION
> command ends, so that it can tell when to ship the command off to the
> backend.
>

By the standard the routine body is a <SQL procedure statement> and the
question of how to figure out where the function body ends should be
answered
as such.

I am talking about two cases, the one psql already handles, and the one
where
the body is (and ends as) a <SQL procedure statement>, which statement
again psql should already understand and which is signaled by the
LANGUAGE SQL declaration in the function header.

Thank you,
Timothy Madden