Re: pl/pgsql: END verbosity

Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I'm unkeen. I see no technical advantage - it's just a matter of taste.

There is no "technical advantage" to case insensitive keywords, or 
dollar quoting, or a variety of other programming language features that 
don't change functionality but exist to make using the programming 
language easier.

> We advertise that plpgsql is similar to plsql - we should not do
> anything to make that less so IMNSHO.

Do you *really* mean that? This principle would mean we should reject 
patches like the CONTINUE statement patch I just applied, for example, 
as PL/SQL has no such construct.

In any case, I think you are overestimating the value of strict PL/SQL 
compatibility. IMHO, PL/PgSQL should be a useful procedural programming 
language first, and a reimplementation of PL/SQL second. We should 
provide an equivalent feature (not necessarily with the same syntax) for 
all of PL/SQL's useful features, but I don't see the value in copying 
Oracle when PL/SQL's implementation of a feature is ugly, broken, or 
inconsistent with the rest of Postgres. It's not as if complete 
source-level compatibility with PL/SQL has been a goal for PL/PgSQL 
anyway (and besides, there are other people, like EnterpriseDB, who can 
provide that for those who need it).

> Terseness is not always good, redundancy is not always bad.

Granted -- but why is redundancy a good thing here?

-Neil