From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org, pgsql-translators(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: more message fixes |
Date: | 2019-05-15 21:48:01 |
Message-ID: | 17813.1557956881@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers pgsql-translators |
Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Here's a bunch of message fixes in the postgres.po module. Please
> comment if anything seems amiss.
These sorts of changes trouble me a bit from a translatability standpoint:
- errmsg("connect = false and enabled = true are mutually exclusive options")));
+ errmsg("%s and %s are mutually exclusive options",
+ "connect = false", "enabled = true")));
- (errmsg("CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT ... USE_SNAPSHOT "
- "must not be called in a subtransaction")));
+ (errmsg("%s must not be called in a subtransaction",
+ "CREATE_REPLICATION_SLOT ... USE_SNAPSHOT")));
A translator might expect the %s's to represent single words.
I think at least you'd want a translator: comment to warn about
what the insertion will be.
+ /* XXX is it okay to use %d for BlockNumber everywhere? */
BlockNumber should be %u, no?
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-05-15 22:25:28 | Re: more message fixes |
Previous Message | Andres Freund | 2019-05-15 21:47:20 | Re: Are ctid chaining loops safe without relation size checks? |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-05-15 22:25:28 | Re: more message fixes |
Previous Message | Alvaro Herrera | 2019-05-15 18:30:05 | more message fixes |