Re: psql patch - Mailing list pgsql-patches

From Guillaume Lelarge
Subject Re: psql patch
Date
Msg-id 45082F7F.6050107@lelarge.info
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: psql patch  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-patches
Tom Lane a ecrit le 13/09/2006 18:05:
> Guillaume Lelarge <guillaume@lelarge.info> writes:
>> diff -r1.89 print.c
>> 853c853
>> <                     snprintf(record_str, 64, "* Record %lu", record++);
>> ---
>>> snprintf(record_str, 64, _("* Record %lu"), record++);
>> 855c855
>> <                     snprintf(record_str, 64, "[ RECORD %lu ]", record++);
>> ---
>>> snprintf(record_str, 64, _("[ RECORD %lu ]"), record++);
>
> Hm, these strings were never localizable in previous versions; if we
> make them so, do we risk breaking any code that examines psql output?
>

Don't know but I always thought tools shoudn't rely on strings output.

> What about the equivalent headers in the other output formats?
>

Which one ? can you give me an example ?

Regards.


--
Guillaume.

pgsql-patches by date:

Previous
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: psql patch
Next
From: Tom Lane
Date:
Subject: Re: Some editing of docs for create index concurrently