Kyotaro HORIGUCHI <horiguchi.kyot...@lab.ntt.co.jp> writes:
> At Tue, 22 May 2018 14:27:29 -0400, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote in
> <13575.1527013...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
>> * Is it OK for the OCLASS_CLASS-with-subId case to assume that it can
>> tack on "column COLNAME" after the description of the relation containing
>> the column? Perhaps this is tolerable but I'm not sure. In English it'd
>> be at least as plausible to write "column COLNAME of <relation>", and
>> maybe there are other languages where there's no good way to deal with
>> the current message structure.
> In Japanese it is written as "<reltype> RELNAME 'NO' <column> COLNAME"
> the or just "<reltype> RELNAME <column> COLNAME" is no problem.
After thinking about this some more, I'd like to propose that we change
the English output to be "column COLNAME of <relation>", using code
similar to what you suggested for O_POLICY etc. I know that I've been
momentarily confused more than once by looking at obj_description output
and thinking "what, the whole relation depends on this? ... oh, no, it's
just the one column". It would be better if the head-word were "column".
If that leads to better translations in other languages, fine, but in
any case this'd be an improvement for English.
> I'll clean-up the two thinkgs and post the result later.
OK, I'll await your patch before doing more here.
regards, tom lane
