From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> |
Cc: | pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: that picksplit debug message again |
Date: | 2009-06-24 05:19:11 |
Message-ID: | 19621.1245820751@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> Is the %d actually in the right place here?
> errmsg("picksplit method for %d column of index \"%s\" failed",
> attno + 1, RelationGetRelationName(r))
No, any native speaker of English would say "for column %d". Putting
"failed" at the end seems a bit awkward as well, though I can't offhand
see a better phrasing. "picksplit method failed for ..." is *not*
better; it implies there is only one picksplit method for everything,
whereas the point of the message is that the one associated with this
column failed.
> And later in the file there is this, which might have the same problem:
> elog(LOG, "PickSplit method of %d columns of index '%s' doesn't support
> secondary split",
> attno + 1, RelationGetRelationName(r));
Should be "for column %d" also, AFAICS, plus '' -> "" and lowercase
"PickSplit" ... but this message isn't translatable anyway as an elog().
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Stefan Kaltenbrunner | 2009-06-24 05:29:45 | Re: [PATCH] backend: compare word-at-a-time in bcTruelen |
Previous Message | Robert Haas | 2009-06-24 05:09:57 | pg_listener attribute number #defines |