Re: GUC names in messages

On Thu, Nov 2, 2023 at 1:25 AM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
...
> Our error message style guidelines say not to assemble messages out
> of separate parts, because it makes translation difficult.  Originally
> we applied that rule to GUC names mentioned in messages as well.
> Awhile ago the translation team decided that that made for too many
> duplicative translations, so they'd be willing to compromise on
> substituting GUC names.  That's only been changed in a haphazard
> fashion though, mostly in cases where there actually were duplicative
> messages that could be merged this way.  And there's never been any
> real clarity about whether to quote GUC names, though certainly we're
> more likely to quote anything injected with %s.  So that's why we have
> a mishmash right now.

Right. While looking at all the messages I observed a number of them
having almost the same (but not quite the same) wording:

For example,

errhint("Consider increasing the configuration parameter \"max_wal_size\".")));
errhint("You might need to increase %s.", "max_locks_per_transaction")));
errhint("You might need to increase %s.", "max_pred_locks_per_transaction")));
errmsg("could not find free replication state, increase
max_replication_slots")));
hint ? errhint("You might need to increase %s.", "max_slot_wal_keep_size") : 0);
errhint("You may need to increase max_worker_processes.")));
errhint("Consider increasing configuration parameter
\"max_worker_processes\".")));
errhint("Consider increasing the configuration parameter
\"max_worker_processes\".")));
errhint("You might need to increase %s.", "max_worker_processes")));
errhint("You may need to increase max_worker_processes.")));
errhint("You might need to increase %s.", "max_logical_replication_workers")));

~

The most common pattern there is "You might need to increase %s.".

Here is a patch to modify those other similar variations so they share
that common wording.

PSA.

======
Kind Regards,
Peter Smith.
Fujitsu Australia