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
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 |