2010/10/8 Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us>: > Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes: >> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.steh...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >>> b) SRF functions must not be finished by RETURN statement - I know, so >>> there is outer default block, but it looks like inconsistency for SRF >>> functions, because you can use a RETURN NEXT without RETURN. It maybe >>> isn't bug - but I am filling it as inconsistency. > >> I don't see what's wrong with this. > > Back around 8.0 we intentionally changed plpgsql to not require a final > RETURN in cases where RETURN isn't used to supply the result value: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2005-04/msg00152.php > http://git.postgresql.org/gitweb?p=postgresql.git;a=commitdiff;h=e00ee887612da0dab02f1a56e33d8ae821710e14 > > Even if there were a good argument for going back to the old way, > backwards-compatibility would win the day, I think. Being strict > about this --- in *either* direction --- would break a lot of code. > > regards, tom lane
ok, understand - thank you. I think so it was not a best decision - the RETURN statement helps with higher verbosity, but I can accept so there are not way to back. Regards Pavel -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
