Re: BUG #4186: set lc_messages does not work

My apologies on this late reply.
The way LC_MESSAGES is handled on windows is much less efficient and faulty.
While ago I started with a patch to fix some of the issues I encountered on
windows and LC_MESSAGES. But I stopped working on that patch because this
problem needed to be fixed on many other places. In Windows, handling
LC_MESSAGES will not work the same way as *nix systems, forcing us to make
ugly workarounds. (as I actually was doing with my patch)

To my opinion, unless we think of a coherent solution for handling
LC_MESSAGES/locale for both *nix and win32 platforms, fixing lc_messages and
locale issues would break more than fixing it.

BTW: The gettext library we are using on win32 is a very old one.

Regards,
Gevik.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Magnus Hagander [mailto:magnus@hagander.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:54 PM
> To: Bruce Momjian
> Cc: Tom Lane; Thomas H.; pgsql-bugs@postgresql.org; Gevik Babakhani
> Subject: Re: [BUGS] BUG #4186: set lc_messages does not work
>
> Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Tom Lane wrote:
> >> Magnus Hagander <magnus@hagander.net> writes:
> >>> Thomas H. wrote:
> >>>> so at least that explains the "changed" behaviour. nevertheless,
> >>>> LC_MESSAGES seems to be defunct - with the "locale"
> folder present,
> >>>> pg always picks the os' language and ignores the
> lc_message value.
> >>> This looks like I can reproduce though, at least on cvs head. Did
> >>> this work for you in previous versions?
> >> Maybe we were using a different build of gettext in the previous
> >> releases, one that didn't look at the same info as the
> current code?
> >>
> >> Anyway the patch mentioned at the start of the thread
> >> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-02/msg00038.php
> >> purports to fix this.  It doesn't seem to have gotten reviewed
> >> though.
> >
> > Agreed.  Magnus, someone, can we get feedback on the patch
> at this URL?
> >
> >
> http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-patches/2008-02/msg00038.php
>
> IIRC, there was further work to be done on the patch before
> it was to be applied, and we held off the review until then.
>
> Gevik - can you comment on this? Where are we, what needs ot
> be done still?
>
> //Magnus
>