Re: Some leftovers of recent message cleanup?

At Thu, 19 Aug 2021 20:29:42 +0900, Fujii Masao <masao(dot)fujii(at)oss(dot)nttdata(dot)com> wrote in
> On 2021/08/19 17:03, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
> > Hello.
> > While I was examining message translation for PG14, I found some
> > messages that would need to be fixed.
> > 0001 is a fix for perhaps-leftovers of the recent message cleanups
> > related to "positive integer"(fd90f6ba7a).
>
> There are still other many messages using "positive" and "negative"
> keywords.
> We should also fix them at all?

I'm not sure, or no if anything. My main point here is not to avoid
use of such kind of words, but reducing variations of the effectively
the same message from the view of translator burden. The two messages
in 0001 are in that category. I noticed those messages accidentally. I
don't think they are the only instance of such divergence, but I'm not
going to do a comprehensive examination of such divergences.. (Or do I
need to check that more comprehensively?)

> BTW, we discussed this before at [1] and concluded that at first
> we should focus on the fix of the ambiguous "non-negative" and
> let "positive" and "negative" keywords as they are.
>
> [1]
> https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/CALj2ACV7KDM8R=SrDbxvxT5yMDi+BMWVVV_UwmmHiii1pumr8Q@mail.gmail.com

Understood. I agree that point and 0003 is worthless as I anticipated.
I misunderstood that "positive" were included in the do-not-use list.

> > 0002 is a fix for a maybe-mistake in message convention of a recent
> > fix in ECPG of linked-connection (about trailing period and
> > lower-cased commad names)
>
> LGTM.

Thanks. So I excluded 0003 and added a fix for regression tests
affected by 0001. (I'm a bit surprised that 0002 doesn't break
regression tests.)

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center