From: | Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
---|---|
To: | Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL-development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: Help text for pg_basebackup -R |
Date: | 2017-02-17 13:37:17 |
Message-ID: | 20170217133717.qpipj5i37ehfygcw@alvherre.pgsql |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> On Wednesday, February 15, 2017, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
> wrote:
>
> > Magnus Hagander wrote:
> >
> > > printf(_(" -R, --write-recovery-conf\n"
> > > - " write recovery.conf
> > after backup\n"));
> > > + " write recovery.conf for
> > replication\n"));
> > > printf(_(" -S, --slot=SLOTNAME replication slot to use\n"));
> >
> > LGTM.
> >
> I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause issues for
> translations, right? So we should make it head only?
We've had the argument a number of times. My stand is that many
translators are active in the older branches, so this update would be
caught there too; and even if not, an updated English message is better
than an outdated native-language message.
Now, that's been argued in the context of a bug fix that introduces new
messages or changed an existing message for other reasons. I'm not sure
how strongly do we think it applies for a change that's *only* about
updating a message. I'm +0.5 on back-patching the change in this case.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Andreas Karlsson | 2017-02-17 13:43:23 | Re: REINDEX CONCURRENTLY 2.0 |
Previous Message | Stephen Frost | 2017-02-17 13:32:51 | Re: pg_dump emits ALTER TABLE ONLY partitioned_table |