On Thu, Sep 10, 2015 at 3:52 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Wed, Sep 9, 2015 at 11:49 PM, Amit Kapila <amit.kapil...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> - errdetail("Could not rename \"%s\" to \"%s\": %m.",
>>> + errdetail("\"%s\" could not be renamed to \"%s\": %m.",
>>> Is there any reason to change this message?
>>> I think you have changed this message to make it somewhat similar with
>>> the new message we are planning to use in this function, but I don't see
>>> that as compelling reason to change this message.
>> The old message better follows the guidelines.  See section 51.3.7:
>> Avoid Passive Voice.  The old message is what's called
>> "telegram-style", with PostgreSQL itself as the implicit subject.  The
>> proposed replacement is just the regular old passive voice.
> Neither version is following the guidelines very well, in particular they
> should be mentioning what kind of object %s is (file? table? tablespace?).
> But to me the "could not be renamed" version seems to be closer to the
> spirit of the "use complete sentences" rule for errdetail.  The other one
> seems better fit for a primary error message, which is supposed to be
> kept short.

Hmm, I did miss the fact that this was an errdetail().  I agree that
the object type should be mentioned either way.  Actually, it's sort
of surprising that this message is a detail message rather than a
primary message.

Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:

Reply via email to