Re: Changeset Extraction v7.9.1 - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Andres Freund
Subject Re: Changeset Extraction v7.9.1
Date
Msg-id 20140307133201.GB22909@awork2.anarazel.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Changeset Extraction v7.9.1  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
List pgsql-hackers
On 2014-03-07 10:17:21 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Andres Freund escribió:
>
> >              fprintf(stderr,
> > -                    _("%s: could not identify system: got %d rows and %d fields, expected %d rows and %d
fields\n"),
> > -                    progname, PQntuples(res), PQnfields(res), 1, 3);
> > +                    _("%s: could not identify system: got %d rows and %d fields, expected 1 row and 3 or more
fields\n"),
> > +                    progname, PQntuples(res), PQnfields(res));
>
> Please don't change this.  The reason these messages use %d and an extra
> printf argument is to avoid giving translators extra work when the
> number of rows or fields is changed.  In these cases I suggest this:
>
> > -                    _("%s: could not identify system: got %d rows and %d fields, expected %d rows and %d
fields\n"),
> > -                    progname, PQntuples(res), PQnfields(res), 1, 3);
> > +                    _("%s: could not identify system: got %d rows and %d fields, expected %d rows and %d or more
fields\n"),
> > +                    progname, PQntuples(res), PQnfields(res), 1, 3);
>
> (Yes, I know the "expected 1 rows" output looks a bit silly.  Since this
> is an unexpected error message anyway, I don't think that's worth
> fixing.)

I changed it to not use placeholders because I thought "or more" was
specific enough to be unlikely to be used in other places, but I don't
have a problem with continuing to use them.

Greetings,

Andres Freund

-- Andres Freund                       http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training &
Services



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: GSoC on WAL-logging hash indexes
Next
From: Craig Ringer
Date:
Subject: Re: Row-security on updatable s.b. views