Re: SQL-standard function body

On 07.06.21 17:27, Tom Lane wrote:
> ... I tend to agree with Julien's position here.  It seems really ugly
> to prohibit empty statements just for implementation convenience.
> However, the way I'd handle it is to have the grammar remove them,
> which is what it does in other contexts.  I don't think there's any
> need to preserve them in ruleutils output --- there's a lot of other
> normalization we do on the way to that, and this seems to fit in.

Ok, if that's what people prefer.

> BTW, is it just me, or does SQL:2021 fail to permit multiple
> statements in a procedure at all?  After much searching, I found the
> BEGIN ATOMIC ... END syntax, but it's in <triggered SQL statement>,
> in other words the body of a trigger not a procedure.  I cannot find
> any production that connects a <routine body> to that.  There's an
> example showing use of BEGIN ATOMIC as a procedure statement, so
> they clearly*meant*  to allow it, but it looks like somebody messed
> up the grammar.

It's in the SQL/PSM part.