"Andrew Dunstan" <andrew@dunslane.net> writes:
> Neil Conway said:
>> Any objections?
> I'm unkeen. I see no technical advantage - it's just a matter of taste. We
> advertise that plpgsql is similar to plsql - we should not do anything to
> make that less so IMNSHO. Terseness is not always good, redundancy is not
> always bad.
That was my reaction too, though I'm too tired at this hour to phrase it
so well ;-). The long-term point in my mind is that removing
syntactical redundancy always reduces the ability to detect errors or
report errors acccurately; and it may limit our freedom to introduce
new features later. Consider for example the possibility that Oracle's
next release adds some new frammish that can't be duplicated because we
chose not to distinguish various forms of "END xxx" ...
regards, tom lane