Le 01/01/2011 06:05, Robert Haas a écrit :
> On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> wrote:
>> On tor, 2010-12-30 at 11:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
>>> No, quite the opposite. With the other approach, you needed:
>>>
>>> constraints cannot be used on views
>>> constraints cannot be used on composite types
>>> constraints cannot be used on TOAST tables
>>> constraints cannot be used on indexes
>>> constraints cannot be used on foreign tables
>>>
>>> With this, you just need:
>>>
>>> constraints can only be used on tables
>>
>> At the beginning of this thread you said that the error messages should
>> focus on what you tried to do, not what you could do instead.
>
> Yeah, and I still believe that. I'm having difficulty coming up with
> a workable approach, though. It would be simple enough if we could
> write:
>
> /* translator: first %s is a feature, second %s is a relation type */
> %s cannot be used on %s
>
> ...but I think this is likely to cause some translation headaches.
>
Actually, this is simply not translatable in some languages. We had the
same issue on pgAdmin, and we resolved this by having quite a big number
of new strings to translate. Harder one time for the translator, but
results in a much better experience for the user.
>> Also, in this particular case, the user could very well assume that a
>> TOAST table or a foreign table is a table.
>
> There's a limited amount we can do about confused users, but it is
> true that the negative phrasing is better for that case.
>
It's at least better for the translator.
--
Guillaumehttp://www.postgresql.frhttp://dalibo.com
