Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks

Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of jue ago 09 12:40:08 -0400 2012:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> > On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 11:56 AM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> >> If we do go with the %s-for-a-SQL-keyword approach, it would then become
> >> tempting to force-fit all of the cases into that style.
>
> > I don't really like this, though. I don't think an error cursor is a
> > good substitute for a clear statement of the categorical rule; or to
> > put that another way, I think that forcing all of those messages into
> > this model is going to be awkward.
>
> Fair enough. I was not sold on doing that either. I would still like
> to know if it's okay to use one string with %s for the cases where
> there's not a good reason for the "context" to be more than just a
> SQL keyword. That would save a few lines of code and also reduce
> the number of strings for translators to deal with; so if it's not
> horrid from a translation-quality standpoint, it seems worth doing.

Yes, that part seems to work fine -- at least I haven't seen any
translator complaining.

--
Álvaro Herrera http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training & Services