Thread: Re: Better title output for psql \dt \di etc. commands
On 2025-Feb-03, Tom Lane wrote: > One problem with it is that while we can leave "List of ???" out > of the set of translatable strings easily, we can't currently > do that for the argument of pg_log_error because it's automatically > a gettext trigger. I'd rather not burden translators with figuring > out what to do with that. Is it worth creating pg_log_error_internal, > equivalently to elog and errmsg_internal in the backend? At this point I would just add a "translator:" comment that explains that the ??? bit is for unexpected cases and can be translated in the same way. -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "The problem with the future is that it keeps turning into the present" (Hobbes)
=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> At this point I would just add a "translator:" comment that explains
> that the ??? bit is for unexpected cases and can be translated in the
> same way.
Hmm, do we have a standard policy or comment wording about that?
I looked for "translator: ... unexpected" and didn't find any
existing comments of that sort.
regards, tom lane
On 2025-Feb-04, Tom Lane wrote: > =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes: > > At this point I would just add a "translator:" comment that explains > > that the ??? bit is for unexpected cases and can be translated in the > > same way. > > Hmm, do we have a standard policy or comment wording about that? > I looked for "translator: ... unexpected" and didn't find any > existing comments of that sort. I don't remember cases of messages of that kind marked for translation, so I'm not surprised that we don't have any such comments. Those would typically be elog() or the errfoo_internal() cases, I think. -- Álvaro Herrera PostgreSQL Developer — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/ "El sudor es la mejor cura para un pensamiento enfermo" (Bardia)
=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2025-Feb-04, Tom Lane wrote:
>> =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
>>> At this point I would just add a "translator:" comment that explains
>>> that the ??? bit is for unexpected cases and can be translated in the
>>> same way.
>> Hmm, do we have a standard policy or comment wording about that?
>> I looked for "translator: ... unexpected" and didn't find any
>> existing comments of that sort.
> I don't remember cases of messages of that kind marked for translation,
> so I'm not surprised that we don't have any such comments. Those would
> typically be elog() or the errfoo_internal() cases, I think.
Yeah, that's what I would have thought.
The implementation I had in mind was to just invent a
pg_log_error_internal() macro alias for pg_log_error().
That'd take about two lines counting the explanatory comment.
This approach would fail to suppress the cost of gettext's
trying to look up the string, but surely we aren't concerned
about that here --- we just want to not burden translators
with the string. (I need to check that gettext isn't smart
enough to see through a macro, though. If it is, a static
inline function should do.)
regards, tom lane
On 2025-Feb-04, Tom Lane wrote: > The implementation I had in mind was to just invent a > pg_log_error_internal() macro alias for pg_log_error(). > That'd take about two lines counting the explanatory comment. > This approach would fail to suppress the cost of gettext's > trying to look up the string, but surely we aren't concerned > about that here --- we just want to not burden translators > with the string. Yeah, okay, that seems good enough for me. I agree that the cost of an unnecessary gettext() call is negligible. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
=?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> writes:
> On 2025-Feb-04, Tom Lane wrote:
>> The implementation I had in mind was to just invent a
>> pg_log_error_internal() macro alias for pg_log_error().
>> That'd take about two lines counting the explanatory comment.
>> This approach would fail to suppress the cost of gettext's
>> trying to look up the string, but surely we aren't concerned
>> about that here --- we just want to not burden translators
>> with the string.
> Yeah, okay, that seems good enough for me. I agree that the cost of an
> unnecessary gettext() call is negligible.
Sounds good, I'll proceed along those lines.
regards, tom lane