Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)commandprompt(dot)com>, David Fetter <david(at)fetter(dot)org>, Heikki Linnakangas <heikki(dot)linnakangas(at)enterprisedb(dot)com>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, Itagaki Takahiro <itagaki(dot)takahiro(at)gmail(dot)com>, pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either
Date: 2011-01-01 15:00:46
Message-ID: (view raw, whole thread or download thread mbox)
Lists: pgsql-hackers
On Sat, Jan 1, 2011 at 9:53 AM, Guillaume Lelarge
<guillaume(at)lelarge(dot)info> wrote:
> Le 01/01/2011 06:05, Robert Haas a écrit :
>> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> wrote:
>>> On tor, 2010-12-30 at 11:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>>> No, quite the opposite.  With the other approach, you needed:
>>>> constraints cannot be used on views
>>>> constraints cannot be used on composite types
>>>> constraints cannot be used on TOAST tables
>>>> constraints cannot be used on indexes
>>>> constraints cannot be used on foreign tables
>>>> With this, you just need:
>>>> constraints can only be used on tables
>>> At the beginning of this thread you said that the error messages should
>>> focus on what you tried to do, not what you could do instead.
>> Yeah, and I still believe that.  I'm having difficulty coming up with
>> a workable approach, though.  It would be simple enough if we could
>> write:
>> /* translator: first %s is a feature, second %s is a relation type */
>> %s cannot be used on %s
>> ...but I think this is likely to cause some translation headaches.
> Actually, this is simply not translatable in some languages. We had the
> same issue on pgAdmin, and we resolved this by having quite a big number
> of new strings to translate. Harder one time for the translator, but
> results in a much better experience for the user.

Is it in any better if we write one string per feature, like this:

constraints cannot be used on %s
triggers cannot be used on %s

...where %s is a plural object type (views, foreign tables, etc.).

Robert Haas
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to


pgsql-hackers by date

Next:From: Stefan KaltenbrunnerDate: 2011-01-01 15:12:19
Subject: Re: Sync Rep Design
Previous:From: Guillaume LelargeDate: 2011-01-01 14:53:57
Subject: Re: and it's not a bunny rabbit, either

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2017 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group