On 2020-Jan-29, Michael Paquier wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 03:51:54PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
> > I quickly reread that thread and I don't see that there's any firm
> > consensus there in favor of "read %d of %zu" over "read only %d of %zu
> > bytes". Now, if most people prefer the former, so be it, but I don't
> > think that's clear from that thread.
>
> The argument of consistency falls in favor of the former on HEAD:
> $ git grep "could not read" | grep "read %d of %zu" | wc -l
> 59
> $ git grep "could not read" | grep "read only %d of %zu" | wc -l
> 0
In the discussion that led to 811b6e36a9e2 I did suggest to use "read
only M of N" instead, but there wasn't enough discussion on that fine
point so we settled on what you now call prevalent without a lot of
support specifically on that. I guess it was enough of an improvement
over what was there. But like Robert, I too prefer the wording that
includes "only" and "bytes" over the wording that doesn't.
I'll let it be known that from a translator's point of view, it's a
ten-seconds job to update a fuzzy string from not including "only" and
"bytes" to one that does. So let's not make that an argument for not
changing.
--
Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services