Re: BUG #6722: Debugger broken?

On 13.08.2012 11:39, Dave Page wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 9:20 AM, Heikki Linnakangas
> <heikki.linnakangas@enterprisedb.com>  wrote:
>>
>>>> Ok. So, why is pldbgapi.control file not included? It's there in the
>>>> repository, and "make install" copies it to share/extension.
>>>
>>>
>>> If it's there in the repo, then it shouldn't be. The PRE_9_2 branch of
>>> code is supposed to be how things looked *before* you started your
>>> work - it's the stable branch that we're building the<   9.2 installers
>>> from, and certainly shouldn't have been "extensionised", or had any
>>> other changes made to it except for bug fixes.
>>
>>
>> Then that was a misunderstanding when we discussed that back in May then
>> (http://archives.postgresql.org/pgadmin-hackers/2012-05/msg00022.php). How
>> do you prefer to resolve that now? The extensionised code in PRE_9_2 branch
>> should work on 9.1, if you include all the right files in the installer,
>> including the control file. Or, we can create a new "real" pre-9.2 branch at
>> the point before I started any of this work. Or at the point just before the
>> commit that turned it into an extension. All the commits prior to that seem
>> fairly harmless, but would need to test that it works on all supported
>> platforms and server versions.
>
> It cannot be extensionised - it's used on 8.x too.

The PRE_9_2 code works against older server versions if you run the .sql
file manually. It just isn't an extension then, obviously.

> I think the best
> option is to drop the branch, and recreate it from the point
> immediately prior to your first change, and then cherry pick any
> important bug fixes you may have made into the new branch.

Agreed. I'm not even going cherry-pick any of the fixes from master -
there's a non-zero risk that something is broken, and given the lack of
complaints from the field about the bugs that were fixed, it's not worth
it. The important thing is that the new code that will be included in
9.2 installers has all the goodies, and that the old versions work as
far as they used to.

I tried to drop and recreate the branch, but the server would not let me
push that change, as it's a non-fast-forward update. Someone needs to
temporarily remove the check for that from the git server - I don't
think I have access to do that. Do you?

--
   Heikki Linnakangas
   EnterpriseDB   http://www.enterprisedb.com