Re: PL/pgSQL Debugger Support

From: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jharris(at)tvi(dot)edu>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)surnet(dot)cl>
Cc: "Matthew T(dot) O'Connor" <matthew(at)zeut(dot)net>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Denis Lussier <denisl(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Dave Page <dpage(at)vale-housing(dot)co(dot)uk>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: PL/pgSQL Debugger Support
Date: 2005-06-23 18:06:53
Message-ID: 42BAFA3D.3060003@tvi.edu
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-patches

Alvaro,

I agree, a protocol seems to generally be the best option.

-Jonah

Alvaro Herrera wrote:

>On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 01:40:18PM -0400, Matthew T. O'Connor wrote:
>
>
>>Tom Lane wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Denis Lussier <denisl(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>I got to thinking it'd be kewl if PgAdmin3 supported an interactive
>>>>debugger for pl/pgsql.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>That's been kicked around before, although I don't think anyone wants to
>>>tie it to pgAdmin specifically. Check the archives...
>>>
>>>
>>I didn't find anything relevant after a quick search, but if memory
>>serves, one of the objections to PgAdmin was that it was windows only.
>>This of course is no longer true as of PgAdmin III 1.0. It now support
>>Win32, Linux and FreeBSD. So perhaps that objection is no longer valid.
>>
>>
>
>I think the point is that we will have to make some modifications to
>PL/pgSQL, so why not make sure we write something that any tool can use?
>Say, a well-defined BE/FE protocol extension.
>
>
>

In response to

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tom Lane 2005-06-23 18:08:22 Re: regression failure
Previous Message Andrew Dunstan 2005-06-23 17:55:51 Re: regression failure

Browse pgsql-patches by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Douglas McNaught 2005-06-23 18:18:54 Re: [PATCHES] O_DIRECT for WAL writes
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2005-06-23 17:54:42 Re: PL/pgSQL Debugger Support