On Fri, Feb 17, 2017 at 5:21 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
Stephen Frost <sfrost@snowman.net> writes: > * Alvaro Herrera (alvherre@2ndquadrant.com) wrote: >> Magnus Hagander wrote: >>> I'm guessing if we backpatch something like that, it would cause issues for >>> translations, right? So we should make it head only?
>> We've had the argument a number of times. My stand is that many >> translators are active in the older branches, so this update would be >> caught there too; and even if not, an updated English message is better >> than an outdated native-language message.
> That makes sense to me, at least, so +1, for my part.
Yeah, if the existing message text is actually wrong or misleading, we should back-patch. I'm not sure I would do that if it's just a cosmetic improvement. In this particular case, +1.