On Wed, Apr 7, 2010 at 21:06, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> I wrote:
>> ereport(LOG,
>> (errmsg("could not determine system time zone, defaulting to \"%s\"", "GMT"),
>
> BTW, does anyone remember the reason for making "GMT" nonlocalizable
> in these messages? It seems more straightforward to do
Nope, can't recall that.
> (errmsg("could not determine system time zone, defaulting to \"GMT\""),
>
> I suppose we had a reason for doing it the first way but I can't see
> what. "GMT" seems a fairly English-centric way of referring to UTC
> anyhow; translators might wish to put in "UTC" instead, or some other
> spelling. Shouldn't we let them?
UTC and GMT aren't actually the same thing. In fact, it might be more
sensible to fall back to UTC than GMT. Both in the message *and* the
code, in that case. They only differ in fractions of seconds, but we
do deal in fractions of seconds... It also carries the nice property
that it's *supposed* to be abbreviated the same way regardless of
language (which is why it's UTC and not CUT).
And either way, it's an abbreviation, and we don't normally translate
those, do we?
-- Magnus HaganderMe: http://www.hagander.net/Work: http://www.redpill-linpro.com/
