Re: Why can't I have a "language sql" anonymous block? - Mailing list pgsql-general

From David G. Johnston
Subject Re: Why can't I have a "language sql" anonymous block?
Date
Msg-id CAKFQuwa0XH7bQxycTSw8FiBbwcsEKxOSKZt=q-XemfR0uyjyZA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Why can't I have a "language sql" anonymous block?  (Bryn Llewellyn <bryn@yugabyte.com>)
Responses Re: Why can't I have a "language sql" anonymous block?  (Bryn Llewellyn <bryn@yugabyte.com>)
List pgsql-general
On Monday, December 13, 2021, Bryn Llewellyn <bryn@yugabyte.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.

David J.

pgsql-general by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Properly handling aggregate in nested function call
Next
From: Bryn Llewellyn
Date:
Subject: Re: Why can't I have a "language sql" anonymous block?