so 10. 10. 2020 v 18:14 odesÃlatel Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> napsal:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes: > > A sub-patch extracted from the bigger patch in thread "SQL-standard > > function body"[0]: Make LANGUAGE SQL the default in CREATE FUNCTION and > > CREATE PROCEDURE, per SQL standard. > > I'm suspicious of doing this, mainly because DO does not have that > default. I think sticking with no-default is less likely to cause > confusion. Moreover, I don't really believe that having a default value > here is going to add any noticeable ease-of-use for anyone. What's much > more likely to happen is that we'll start getting novice questions about > whatever weird syntax errors you get when trying to feed plpgsql code to > the sql-language function parser. (I don't know what they are exactly, > but I'll bet a very fine dinner that they're less understandable to a > novice than "no language specified".) > > I don't see any reason why we can't figure out that an unquoted function > body is SQL, while continuing to make no assumptions about a body written > as a string. The argument that defaulting to SQL makes the latter case > SQL-compliant seems pretty silly anyway. > +1 Pavel > I also continue to suspect that we are going to need to treat quoted > and unquoted SQL as two different languages, possibly with not even > the same semantics. If that's how things shake out, claiming that the > quoted-SQL version is the default because spec becomes even sillier. > > regards, tom lane > > >
