Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/postmaster postmaster.c

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/postmaster postmaster.c
Date: 2001-11-08 01:21:12
Message-ID: 8183.1005182472@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Now back to reality. I think passing in the noun phrase as you suggested
> should be okay:

I'm happy to do it that way if you prefer, but I'm a tad baffled as to
why it solves anything other than word-order issues. Seems like the
inflection issues are still there.

> It loses some elegance, but it should allow grammatically sound
> translations. (Okay, we assume that all languages allow for parenthetical
> notes, but that is not a matter of grammar.)

What I'm intending is to pass in the noun phrase and the PID, allowing
the translatable messages in the subroutine to look like

%s (pid %d) exited with status %d

A variant would be to pass in the adjective for "process":

%s process (pid %d) exited with status %d

Does that seem better, worse, indifferent? If the inflection issues
reach to the root noun but not the adjectives, methinks that might
work better.

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-committers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message tgl 2001-11-08 04:05:18 pgsql/src bin/pg_dump/pg_backup_archiver.c int ...
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-11-08 00:26:31 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/postmaster postmaster.c

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message D'Arcy J.M. Cain 2001-11-08 01:50:28 Re: Proposal: 7.2b2 today
Previous Message Peter Eisentraut 2001-11-08 00:26:31 Re: [COMMITTERS] pgsql/src/backend/postmaster postmaster.c