Re: BufFileRead() error signalling
От | Robert Haas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BufFileRead() error signalling |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CA+TgmobyrHM4ypoPwXDOu2faaOoM+v=_+GQ3krXbshrgDtVtKQ@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BufFileRead() error signalling (Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>) |
Ответы |
Re: BufFileRead() error signalling
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Mon, Jan 27, 2020 at 9:03 PM Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> wrote: > That's actually not the best fit, because this does not take care of > the pluralization of the second message if you have only 1 byte to > read ;) But ... if you have only one byte to read, you cannot have a short read. > A second point to take into account is that the unification of error > messages makes for less translation work, which is always welcome. > Those points have been discussed on this thread: > https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/20180520000522.GB1603@paquier.xyz 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. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: