Re: that picksplit debug message again

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>
Cc: pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: that picksplit debug message again
Date: 2009-06-24 05:19:11
Message-ID: 19621.1245820751@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Is the %d actually in the right place here?
> errmsg("picksplit method for %d column of index \"%s\" failed",
> attno + 1, RelationGetRelationName(r))

No, any native speaker of English would say "for column %d". Putting
"failed" at the end seems a bit awkward as well, though I can't offhand
see a better phrasing. "picksplit method failed for ..." is *not*
better; it implies there is only one picksplit method for everything,
whereas the point of the message is that the one associated with this
column failed.

> And later in the file there is this, which might have the same problem:
> elog(LOG, "PickSplit method of %d columns of index '%s' doesn't support
> secondary split",
> attno + 1, RelationGetRelationName(r));

Should be "for column %d" also, AFAICS, plus '' -> "" and lowercase
"PickSplit" ... but this message isn't translatable anyway as an elog().

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Stefan Kaltenbrunner 2009-06-24 05:29:45 Re: [PATCH] backend: compare word-at-a-time in bcTruelen
Previous Message Robert Haas 2009-06-24 05:09:57 pg_listener attribute number #defines