| From: | Álvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)kurilemu(dot)de> |
|---|---|
| To: | "Jonathan Gonzalez V(dot)" <jonathan(dot)abdiel(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Pg Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: splitting pg_resetwal output strings |
| Date: | 2026-05-24 11:35:59 |
| Message-ID: | ahLhUNrKB8GyG2cQ@alvherre.pgsql |
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Hi,
On 2026-May-24, Jonathan Gonzalez V. wrote:
> On a second round a notice these two strings:
>
> + char *str = "First log segment after reset";
> + thislen = internal_wcswidth(_(str), strlen(_(str)),
> encoding);
> + if (thislen > maxlen)
>
> and [...]
> Are never catch by the `make update-po` command, instead, the strings
> are there in the `.po.new` file commented.
>
> Should we put them between `_()`? or is expected that it's being catch
> by the second line with the `_()` ?
Hmm, yeah, they need to be wrapped in gettext_noop() so that they are
not immediately translated (because that will be done by the _() call in
the other lines) but are picked up by msgmerge. (I think the second one
you reference is "NextXID epoch" but it was victim of a copy-paste
failure.)
Thanks again for looking,
--
Álvaro Herrera 48°01'N 7°57'E — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2026-05-24 14:22:47 | Re: Rename Postgres 19 to Postgres 26 (year-based)? |
| Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2026-05-24 11:29:28 | Re: Adding REPACK [concurrently] |