Re: A few message wording/formatting cleanup patches

> On 28 May 2026, at 05:16, Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> While translating error messages into Japanese

Thank you so much for doing this!

Some comments on a few of your patches:

> 0002: 0002-Use-double-quotes-in-message.patch
>
> fe-protocol3.c has the following message containing backquotes:
>
>> libpq_append_conn_error(conn,
>> "server did not report the unsupported `_pq_.test_protocol_negotiation` parameter in its protocol negotiation message");
>
> but that doesn't seem to match our usual style. Nearby messages use
> double quotes instead.

Agreed. Shouldn't it also be adding the parameter as a %s to further match our style?

- libpq_append_conn_error(conn, "server did not report the unsupported `_pq_.test_protocol_negotiation` parameter in its protocol negotiation message");
+ libpq_append_conn_error(conn, "server did not report the unsupported \"%s\" parameter in its protocol negotiation message", "_pq_.test_protocol_negotiation");

> 0003: 0003-Add-missing-period-to-HINT-message.patch
>
> In be-secure-openssl.c, the following HINT message is missing a
> trailing period:
>
>> errhint("If ssl_sni is enabled then add configuration to "%s", else "%s"",

My bad, will fix. Reading the hint it's also not as helpful as it could be for
a hint I think, perhaps this would be better?

- errhint("If ssl_sni is enabled then add configuration to \"%s\", else \"%s\"",
+ errhint("If ssl_sni is enabled then add configuration to \"%s\", else configure SSL in \"%s\".",

> 0004: 0004-Use-singular-datachecksum-consistently-in-process-na.patch
>
> In datachecksum_state.c, the launcher process is referred to in two
> different ways: "datachecksum launcher" and "datachecksums
> launcher". Considering the worker process name, I think the former is
> probably the intended one, so this patch makes the naming consistent
> accordingly.
>
> That said, I can also imagine an interpretation where "datachecksums"
> was chosen intentionally to refer to the checksum feature or checksum
> set as a whole, so I'm not entirely sure whether this should be
> considered a real issue or just a stylistic inconsistency.
>
> Still, having both forms coexist seems somewhat error-prone in
> practice, especially when typing or searching symbol names.

I am clearly biased, or Stockholm syndromed, but DataChecksumsXXX was chosen
deliberately since it affects the feature which is exposed with the GUC
data_checksums. Renaming it does not improve clarity IMHO. The singular form
"checksum" is used where it refers to a single entity, like the cluster state
which can only be a single value.

It would however be an improvement to rename the "datachecksum launcher|worker"
cases you found to "datachecksums" since they are user facing.

- * This creates the list of databases for the datachecksumsworker workers to
+ * This creates the list of databases for the datachecksum workers to

This comment refers to a worker process of the type datachecksumsworker, the
proposed change makes that less clear IMO. That said, the original wording
isn't great so maybe "datachecksumsworker process" is better?

--
Daniel Gustafsson