Re: [HACKERS] translatable string fixes - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Alvaro Herrera
Subject Re: [HACKERS] translatable string fixes
Date
Msg-id 20170523001557.bq2hbq7hxyvyw62q@alvherre.pgsql
Whole thread Raw
In response to [HACKERS] translatable string fixes  (Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>)
Responses Re: [pgsql-translators] [HACKERS] translatable string fixes  (Daniele Varrazzo <daniele.varrazzo@gmail.com>)
Re: [HACKERS] translatable string fixes  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
It took me a very long time to figure out how to translate these 9.6-new
strings in the AM validate routines:

msgid "gin operator family \"%s\" contains support procedure %s with cross-type registration"

The problem I had was that the term "cross-type registration" is not
used anywhere else, it's not clear what it means, and (worst from my
POV) I couldn't think of any decent phrasing in Spanish for it.  After
staring at the code for a while, I translated them roughly as:

"gin operator family %s contains support procedure %s registered with differing types"

which I think is a tad clearer ... but as a user confronted with such a
message, I would be at a complete loss on what to do about it.

Maybe we can use this phrasing:
"gin operator family %s contains support procedure %s registered with different left and right types"


The other complaint I have about this one and also other amvalidate
functions is the hardcoded AM name, so it's actually one string per AM,
which is annoying (a total of twenty-something messages which are
actually only four or five different ones).  Ignoring the second part of
the phrase now, we could use this:
  "operator family %s of access method %s contains support procedure %s with cross-type registration"

Thoughts?

--
Álvaro Herrera                https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Chapman Flack
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] PG10 Crash-safe and replicable Hash Indexes and UNIQUE
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Improve logical decoding error message (was wal_level > WAL_LEVEL_LOGICAL)