Re: BUG #4186: set lc_messages does not work

From: Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net>
To: Bruce Momjian <bruce(at)momjian(dot)us>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Thomas H(dot)" <me(at)alternize(dot)com>, pgsql-bugs(at)postgresql(dot)org, Gevik Babakhani <pgdev(at)xs4all(dot)nl>
Subject: Re: BUG #4186: set lc_messages does not work
Date: 2008-08-05 14:53:56
Message-ID: 48986984.70906@hagander.net
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-bugs pgsql-hackers

Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> Magnus Hagander <magnus(at)hagander(dot)net> writes:
>>> Thomas H. wrote:
>>>> so at least that explains the "changed" behaviour. nevertheless,
>>>> LC_MESSAGES seems to be defunct - with the "locale" folder present,
>>>> pg always picks the os' language and ignores the lc_message value.
>>> This looks like I can reproduce though, at least on cvs head. Did this
>>> work for you in previous versions?
>> Maybe we were using a different build of gettext in the previous
>> releases, one that didn't look at the same info as the current code?
>>
>> Anyway the patch mentioned at the start of the thread
>> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-02/msg00038.php
>> purports to fix this. It doesn't seem to have gotten reviewed
>> though.
>
> Agreed. Magnus, someone, can we get feedback on the patch at this URL?
>
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-02/msg00038.php

IIRC, there was further work to be done on the patch before it was to be
applied, and we held off the review until then.

Gevik - can you comment on this? Where are we, what needs ot be done still?

//Magnus

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-bugs by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Hiroshi Saito 2008-08-05 15:15:35 Re: BUG #4186: set lc_messages does not work
Previous Message Markus Wanner 2008-08-05 12:20:57 Re: BUG #4339: The postgreSQL service stops abnormally

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Marko Kreen 2008-08-05 15:05:18 Re: plan invalidation vs stored procedures
Previous Message Tom Lane 2008-08-05 14:51:25 Status of DISTINCT-by-hashing work