Re: Help text for pg_basebackup -R

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net>
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>, PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: Help text for pg_basebackup -R
Date: 2017-02-17 16:21:35
Message-ID: 20387.1487348495@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> writes:
> * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com) wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander wrote:
>>> I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause issues for
>>> translations, right? So we should make it head only?

>> We've had the argument a number of times. My stand is that many
>> translators are active in the older branches, so this update would be
>> caught there too; and even if not, an updated English message is better
>> than an outdated native-language message.

> That makes sense to me, at least, so +1, for my part.

Yeah, if the existing message text is actually wrong or misleading,
we should back-patch. I'm not sure I would do that if it's just a
cosmetic improvement. In this particular case, +1.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Keith Fiske 2017-02-17 16:23:18 Re: Index corruption with CREATE INDEX CONCURRENTLY
Previous Message Tom Lane 2017-02-17 16:14:21 Re: pg_recvlogical.c doesn't build with --disable-integer-datetimes