Re: more message fixes

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-translators(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: more message fixes
Date: 2019-05-15 21:48:01
Message-ID: 17813.1557956881@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers pgsql-translators

Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Here's a bunch of message fixes in the postgres.po module. Please
> comment if anything seems amiss.

These sorts of changes trouble me a bit from a translatability standpoint:

- errmsg("connect = false and enabled = true are mutually exclusive options")));
+ errmsg("%s and %s are mutually exclusive options",
+ "connect = false", "enabled = true")));

- (errmsg("CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT ... USE_SNAPSHOT "
- "must not be called in a subtransaction")));
+ (errmsg("%s must not be called in a subtransaction",
+ "CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT ... USE_SNAPSHOT")));

A translator might expect the %s's to represent single words.
I think at least you'd want a translator: comment to warn about
what the insertion will be.

+ /* XXX is it okay to use %d for BlockNumber everywhere? */

BlockNumber should be %u, no?

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-05-15 22:25:28 Re: more message fixes
Previous Message Andres Freund 2019-05-15 21:47:20 Re: Are ctid chaining loops safe without relation size checks?

Browse pgsql-translators by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-05-15 22:25:28 Re: more message fixes
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-05-15 18:30:05 more message fixes