Re: Implementing SQL/PSM for PG 8.2 - debugger

I'm psyched for EDB to particpate and/or in some way sponsor this effort. How can we best help to make this a reality sooner rather than later??

There's going to be a painful period later this year when Mysqueel is able to claim that their production db has more ansi compatability than PG (at least for triggers and stored procs).

It'll be very kewl having native PG with a fully ansi-iso compliant stored procedure language with an efficient and clean implementation with great performance charateristics and a debugger to boot...

--Luss

------Original Message------
From: Jonah H. Harris
To: Dave Cramer
Cc: Pavel Stehule
Cc: Tom Lane
Cc: Neil Conway
Cc: Jan Wieck
Cc: Denis Lussier
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Sent: Jun 28, 2005 5:58 PM
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Implementing SQL/PSM for PG 8.2 - debugger

Dave,

I lean with you and Tom. While running it over the same libpq protocol
would be helpful in some ways, it would have a lot of drawbacks and
would really change the function of libpq. I think a separate debugging
protocol is in order.

Also, as far as bytecode comments go, let's separate them from this
thread. I have a pretty sweet hand-written stack-based VM that
understands PL/SQL, but it's kinda old and written using PCCTS 1.33 (a
recursive descent parser). It has compilation, decompilation, and full
debugging capabilities. Unfortunately, PCCTS is no longer maintained as
Terrence Parr (the originator) has since moved to ANTLR. ANTLR
currently does not generate C code although I have done some starting
work on it (ANTLR currently generates Python, Java, or C++). I don't
suggest we really reuse one of the current VMs as it would require a lot
more support and coordination. Let's take the bytecode discussion off
this thread and move it to another. There is certainly a good and bad
side to using bytecode and I would be glad to discuss it in another thread.

Dave Cramer wrote:

> Pavel,
>
> I am in agreement with Tom here, we should use a separate port, and
> protocol specifically designed for this.
>
> My understanding is that this protocol would be synchronous, and be
> used for transferring state information, variables, etc back and forth
> whereas the existing protocol would still be used to transfer data
> back

------Original Message Truncated------

--Luss