Search Postgresql Archives

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

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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.klaver@xxxxxxxxxxx





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Index of Archives]     [Postgresql Jobs]     [Postgresql Admin]     [Postgresql Performance]     [Linux Clusters]     [PHP Home]     [PHP on Windows]     [Kernel Newbies]     [PHP Classes]     [PHP Databases]     [Postgresql & PHP]     [Yosemite]

  Powered by Linux