Tom Lane wrote: > alan...@gmail.com writes: >>> One thing to watch out for is that the intention may have been to allow >>> the strings to be translated. > >> I'm not sure if that's the case. How does one find out? > > If the origin of the "variable" format is a constant or set of constants > decorated with gettext_noop(), then this type of edit will have defeated > the intended localization. In the cases at hand, I believe that all but > one of your proposed patches break the desired behavior. > > What's worse, I see that Magnus got there before you, and has broken > localization here and in several other places: > http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-11/msg00264.php
> Magnus, you wanna clean up the mess? Crap. Yeah, I'll try to get around to that soon. No time tonight though. > And what patch does the "few more" > comment refer back to? I think it refers to this: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-committers/2008-11/msg00249.php Initially it came out of this thread: http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2008-11/msg01348.php If my memory is correct, there shouldn't be more than those two patches. > A workable solution that both silences the warning and preserves > localizability is to follow a coding pattern like this: > > const char *mymsg = gettext_noop("Some text to be localized."); > > ... > > errmsg("%s", _(mymsg)) // not just errmsg(mymsg) > > I would recommend that we do this, because otherwise we are certainly > going to have more breakage from well-intentioned patchers, whatever > Peter's opinion of the merits of the compiler warning might be ;-) Seems reasonable. //Magnus -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
