Horton

Re: GUC names in messages

Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>

View thread View on postgr.es
From: Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Cc: Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>, Laurenz Albe <laurenz.albe@cybertec.at>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, Daniel Gustafsson <daniel@yesql.se>, PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-09-03T06:35:13Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers 
On Tue, Sep 03, 2024 at 12:00:19PM +1000, Peter Smith wrote:
> Here is the rebased patch set v10*. Everything is the same as before
> except now there are only 7 patches instead of 8. The previous v9-0001
> ("bool") patch no longer exists because those changes are now already
> present in HEAD.
> 
> I hope these might be pushed soon to avoid further rebasing.

0001~0004 could just be merged, they're the same thing, for different
GUC types.  The consensus mentioned in 17974ec25946 makes that clear.

0007 is a good thing for translators, indeed..  I'll see about doing
something here, at least.
--
Michael

Commits

  1. Apply GUC name from central table in more places of guc.c

  2. Use camel case for "DateStyle" in some error messages

  3. Unify some error messages to ease work of translators

  4. Apply more quoting to GUC names in messages

  5. Revise GUC names quoting in messages again

  6. doc: Mention how to use quotes with GUC names in error messages

  7. Apply quotes more consistently to GUC names in logs