> david.g.johns...@gmail.com wrote: > >> On Monday, December 13, 2021, Bryn Llewellyn <b...@yugabyte.com >> <mailto:b...@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.
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.
