Re: a few small bugs in plpgsql

2010/10/8 Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Thu, Oct 7, 2010 at 2:53 PM, Pavel Stehule <pavel.stehule@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