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: Internationalized error messages |
Date: | 2001-03-09 20:48:33 |
Message-ID: | 8660.984170913@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:
> Well, SQL defines these. Do we want to make our own list? However,
> numeric codes also have the advantage that some hierarchy is possible.
> E.g., the "22" in "2200G" is actually the category code "data exception".
> Personally, I would stick to the SQL codes but make some readable macro
> name for backend internal use.
We will probably find cases where we need codes not defined by SQL
(since we have non-SQL features). If there is room to invent our
own codes then I have no objection to this.
>> I am not sure we can/should use gettext (possible license problems?),
> Gettext is an open standard, invented at Sun IIRC. There is also an
> independent implementation for BSDs in the works. On GNU/Linux system
> it's in the C library. I don't see any license problems that way.
Unless that BSD implementation is ready to go, I think we'd be talking
about relying on GPL'd (not LGPL'd) code for an essential component of
the system functionality. Given RMS' recent antics I am much less
comfortable with that than I might once have been.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-03-09 20:57:45 | Re: porting question: funky uid names? |
Previous Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2001-03-09 20:45:14 | Re: Internationalized error messages |