2009/10/23 Alvaro Herrera :
> Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>
>> Note that only glibc supports switching the language at run time. And
>> doing it is probably very expensive if you want to do it twice per
>> message.
>
> Ouch :-(
>
>> I think you could probably get much of the use case out of this if yo
Alvaro Herrera writes:
> So we'd go with a single setting to define language, which would be the
> current lc_messages, and two new settings, say translate_log_messages
> and translate_client_messages, the latter being USERSET.
> Does that sound reasonable?
How do we get to the point where indiv
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> Note that only glibc supports switching the language at run time. And
> doing it is probably very expensive if you want to do it twice per
> message.
Ouch :-(
> I think you could probably get much of the use case out of this if you
> concentrate on making two switches
On tor, 2009-10-22 at 10:59 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> What I am wondering right now is whether we could have two separate
> attributes, one SUSET defining what goes to the log, and another one
> USERSET defining what's sent to the client.
Note that only glibc supports switching the language a
Magnus Hagander wrote:
> 2009/10/22 Alvaro Herrera :
> > What I am wondering right now is whether we could have two separate
> > attributes, one SUSET defining what goes to the log, and another one
> > USERSET defining what's sent to the client.
> This would allow me to have the client messages i
2009/10/22 Alvaro Herrera :
> So right now we have a single GUC determining the language that log
> messages are in, and it is PGC_SUSET to avoid a user from sending
> messages to the log that the DBA cannot read.
>
> However, this means that the client cannot get the messages in the
> language of
