Re: more i18n/l10n issues

And maybe show the descriptions in pg_settings too?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e(at)gmx(dot)net> writes:
> > Dave Page writes:
> >> I find this a little worrying because if we want a feature or tweak for
> >> pgAdmin we usually have to fight tooth & nail to justify getting it
> >> committed (which is not a bad thing), however 'some guys at Red Hat' are
> >> getting switches added to the postmaster without any discussion?
>
> > It was not a nice thing to do.
>
> Gimme a break, guys. There *was* discussion, eg here,
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2003-06/msg01092.php
> and the patch was posted for review, see this thread:
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2003-06/msg00420.php
>
> I'll admit that I applied the patch with more than usual speed, but that
> was because we were right up against our self-imposed feature freeze
> deadline for 7.4, and I didn't see any big objections. The biggest
> gripe left over at the end of the above-mentioned patches thread was that
> the message texts were unpolished, but as even Peter agreed, that could
> be fixed later. So MHO is let's fix them now.
>
> > Could whoever is responsible for this admin tool at Red Hat please specify
> > exactly what data they need out of this interface, so we have a chance to
> > make the interface a little more future-proof now and possibly remove some
> > of the unneeded clutter that is giving translators problems?
>
> The point was to allow a GUI utility to be built that would help in
> editing postgresql.conf. It couldn't assume the postmaster is already
> running, so just extending the pg_config view wouldn't answer, and
> duplicating knowledge of all the GUC variables in a separate tool
> would have created maintenance headaches. I would like to think that
> the patch would eventually allow us to generate postgresql.conf.sample
> automatically from the guc.c tables, and thereby reduce the number of
> files to maintain, but that didn't get done yet. The reason for having
> both "long" and "short" descriptions of the variables was that I foresaw
> the "short" versions as becoming the per-line comments in
> postgresql.conf. The "long" descriptions were what the GUI tool wants.
>
> regards, tom lane
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to majordomo(at)postgresql(dot)org
>

--
Bruce Momjian | http://candle.pha.pa.us
pgman(at)candle(dot)pha(dot)pa(dot)us | (610) 359-1001
+ If your life is a hard drive, | 13 Roberts Road
+ Christ can be your backup. | Newtown Square, Pennsylvania 19073