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

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Bryn Llewellyn <bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-general list <pgsql-general(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Why can't I have a "language sql" anonymous block?
Date: 2021-12-13 20:53:37
Message-ID: 872342.1639428817@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general

Bryn Llewellyn <bryn(at)yugabyte(dot)com> writes:
> Was there a deliberate decision not to allow a “language sql” anonymous block? Or is it just that nobody thought that it would be useful?

I think nobody thought it'd be useful. What's the difference from
just executing the contained SQL statements?

(If DO blocks had parameters, the conclusion might be different,
but they don't so far.)

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Matt Magoffin 2021-12-13 21:12:31 Properly handling aggregate in nested function call
Previous Message Bryn Llewellyn 2021-12-13 20:45:48 Why can't I have a "language sql" anonymous block?