On Wed, May 15, 2019 at 12:17:29PM -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
>On 2019-May-05, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>
>> OK, so here is a patch, using elog() for all places except for the
>> input function, where we simply report we don't accept those values.
>
>Hmm, does this actually work? I didn't know that elog() supported
>errcode()/errmsg()/etc. I thought the macro definition didn't allow for
>that.
>
D'oh, it probably does not. I might not have tried to compile it before
sending it to the mailing list, not sure ... :-(
>Anyway, since the messages are still passed with errmsg(), they would
>still end up in the message catalog, so this patch doesn't help my case.
>I would suggest that instead of changing ereport to elog, you should
>change errmsg() to errmsg_internal(). That prevents the translation
>marking, and achieves the desired effect. (You can verify by running
>"make update-po" in src/backend/ and seeing that the msgid no longer
>appears in postgres.pot).
>
>> Now, what about backpatch? It's a small tweak, but it makes the life a
>> bit easier for translators ...
>
>+1 for backpatching.
>
OK.
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services