Re: pg_upgrade's object listing

At Fri, 27 Oct 2023 05:56:31 +0000, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj(dot)fnst(at)fujitsu(dot)com> wrote in
> On Friday, October 27, 2023 1:21 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi <horikyota(dot)ntt(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> >
> > Hello.
> >
> > I found the following message recently introduced in pg_upgrade:
> >
> > > pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "slot_name: \"%s\", plugin: \"%s\",
> > two_phase: %s",
> > > slot_info->slotname,
> > > slot_info->plugin,
> > > slot_info->two_phase ? "true" : "false");
> >
> > If the labels correspond to the struct member names, the first label ought to be
> > "slotname". If not, all labels of this type, including those adjucent, should have a
> > more natural spelling.
> >
> > What do you think about this?
>
> Thanks for reporting. But I am not sure if rename to slotname or others will be an
> improvement. I think we don't have a rule to make the output the same as struct
> field. Existing message also don't follow it[1]. So, the current message looks
> OK to me.
>
> [1]
> pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "relname: \"%s.%s\", reloid: %u, reltblspace: \"%s\"",
> rel_arr->rels[relnum].nspname,
> rel_arr->rels[relnum].relname,
> rel_arr->rels[relnum].reloid,
> rel_arr->rels[relnum].tablespace);

Thanks for sharing your perspectie. I share similar sentiments. The
initial question arose during the message translation. For the
subsequent one, I opted not to translate the labels as they looked to
be member names. From this viewpoint, "slot_name" is rather ambiguous.

If there's no interest in modifying it, I will retain the original
labels in translated messages, and that should suffice.

regards.

--
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center