Re: pgsql: Fix lack of message pluralization

> On 3 Sep 2026, at 14:49, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>
> On 03.09.26 13:29, Daniel Gustafsson wrote:
>>> On 3 Sep 2026, at 12:47, Peter Eisentraut <peter(at)eisentraut(dot)org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Fix lack of message pluralization
>> Maybe I'm daft, but why is the message below pluralized since the %d parameter
>> is the same?
>
> Do you mean the parameter is constant?

Right.

> This is correct, but we have some precedent to pluralize these kinds of things anyway. Several reasons:
>
> - Translators shouldn't have to look into the source code what the actual value is. (Or, in this case, even beyond the actual source code.)
>
> - Maybe tomorrow someone changes this to PG_UINT16_MAX, and then it might have to be translated differently.
>
> - Not in this specific case but in general: You might have the same message in different contexts but with different numbers.

Makes sense, thanks for explaining!

--
Daniel Gustafsson