Re: Why can't I have a "language sql" anonymous block?

> david(dot)g(dot)johnston(at)gmail(dot)com wrote:
>
>> On Monday, December 13, 2021, Bryn Llewellyn <bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com <mailto:bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com>> wrote:
>>
>> There must be a reason to prefer a “language sql” procedure over a “language plpgsql” procedure—otherwise the former wouldn’t be supported.
>
> I would say that is true for functions. I wouldn’t assume that for procedures—it’s probable that because sql already worked for functions we got that feature for free when implementing procedures.

Interesting. That’s exactly the kind of historical insight I was after. Thanks.

It’s very tempting to think that “language sql” is meaningful only as a performance feature and in that connection only for a stored function because only a function can be inlined in a surrounding regular SQL statement. (You can invoke a procedure only as a singleton in the dedicated “call” statement.) In other words there can be no inlining benefit for a stored procedure.

It’s certainly no problem for the coder to bracket what would have been the body of a “language sql” DO block with a single “begin… end;”.

I should save any of you the effort of telling me this: a DO block is an anonymous, ephemeral procedure. It’s certainly not an anonymous function.