Re: Proposal for debugging of server-side stored procedures

From: Thomas Hallgren <thomas(at)tada(dot)se>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Mark Cave-Ayland <m(dot)cave-ayland(at)webbased(dot)co(dot)uk>
Subject: Re: Proposal for debugging of server-side stored procedures
Date: 2006-05-29 18:02:55
Message-ID: 447B374F.9050601@tada.se
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Tom Lane wrote:
> "Mark Cave-Ayland" <m(dot)cave-ayland(at)webbased(dot)co(dot)uk> writes:
> ... So basically yeah, what we need
> is a debug subchannel in the FE/BE protocol. I'd suggest inventing
> a single Debug message type (sendable in both directions) with the
> contents being specified by a separate protocol definition. Or perhaps
> invert that and imagine the FE/BE protocol as embedded in a debug
> protocol.
>
I think this is a bad idea. PL/Java will use either shared memory or a socket to attach and
as you already mentioned, when using C, a gdb will attach directly using the pid. I wouldn't
be too surprised if Perl, Python, and PHP all have a similar solution and thus have no
benefit from additions to the FE/BE protocol. IMO, debugging should be language specific and
take place in a separate channel. There's no gain whatsoever mixing it with the FE/BE protocol.

Regards,
Thomas Hallgren

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Magnus Hagander 2006-05-29 18:20:02 Re: anoncvs still slow
Previous Message Marc G. Fournier 2006-05-29 18:00:44 Re: anoncvs still slow