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

On 12/14/21 11:30, Bryn Llewellyn wrote:
> /Adrian Klaver wrote:/
>
> /Bryn wrote:/

>
> Thanks for the links to the articles on the inlining of “language sql”
> functions into SQL statements that use them. (I noted “the exact
> conditions which apply to inlining are somewhat complex and not well
> documented outside the source code” in the PG Wiki.) This optimization
> is interesting. But its discussion is orthogonal to the question that I
> asked.

You asked:

"There must be a reason to prefer a “language sql” procedure over a
“language plpgsql” procedure—otherwise the former wouldn’t be supported."

I provided two reasons, or did I misread that?

> It would seem, on its face, that the DO block is preferable because it
> uses a single server call from the client rather than four. (Maybe it’s
> two server calls if the implementation of autocommit is done client-side
> by sending a follow-up “commit”.) I do know that at least some client
> languages that have a PG driver allow many SQL statements to be sent in
> a single call. I’ve heard that psql will do this if all the statements
> are on one line. But I can’t find anything in the PG docs about this. Is
> it true? And if so, where is it documented? However, this just feels far
> less like a clear way to ask for what you want than a DO block. And it
> would lead to unreadable code with only a small number of to-be-batched
> SQL statements.

Seems to work for the tests:

https://git.postgresql.org/gitweb/?p=postgresql.git;a=blob;f=src/test/regress/sql/timestamp.sql;h=e011e779ea2da20393f624505ad6dea7f9582438;hb=HEAD

>
> All this aside, as long as DO blocks don’t allow their contained
> statements to be parameterized, you anyway have to use a procedure to
> get the functionality that you need. This makes my question largely
> moot—as Tom implied. So I’ll simply hope that, one day, the PostgreSQL
> guardians will concede that implementing this missing DO functionality
> would be useful—just as the Oracle Database guardians decided three
> decades ago—and bring that functionality in a future PG release.

My experience is when I get to the point of needing parameters I'm
pretty much going to need the other plpgsql features. I could see having
it, but I do not remember seeing any/many previous posts to this list
requesting it. That pushes it down to the bottom of the must haves.

--
Adrian Klaver
adrian(dot)klaver(at)aklaver(dot)com