> On 3 Sep 2026, at 14:49, Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote: > > On 03.09.26 13:29, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: >>> On 3 Sep 2026, at 12:47, Peter Eisentraut <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> Fix lack of message pluralization >> Maybe I'm daft, but why is the message below pluralized since the %d >> parameter >> is the same? > > Do you mean the parameter is constant?
Right. > This is correct, but we have some precedent to pluralize these kinds of > things anyway. Several reasons: > > - Translators shouldn't have to look into the source code what the actual > value is. (Or, in this case, even beyond the actual source code.) > > - Maybe tomorrow someone changes this to PG_UINT16_MAX, and then it might > have to be translated differently. > > - Not in this specific case but in general: You might have the same message > in different contexts but with different numbers. Makes sense, thanks for explaining! -- Daniel Gustafsson
