At Fri, 27 Oct 2023 05:56:31 +0000, "Zhijie Hou (Fujitsu)" <houzj.f...@fujitsu.com> wrote in > On Friday, October 27, 2023 1:21 PM Kyotaro Horiguchi > <horikyota....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > Hello. > > > > I found the following message recently introduced in pg_upgrade: > > > > > pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "slot_name: \"%s\", plugin: \"%s\", > > two_phase: %s", > > > slot_info->slotname, > > > slot_info->plugin, > > > slot_info->two_phase ? "true" : "false"); > > > > If the labels correspond to the struct member names, the first label ought > > to be > > "slotname". If not, all labels of this type, including those adjucent, > > should have a > > more natural spelling. > > > > What do you think about this? > > Thanks for reporting. But I am not sure if rename to slotname or others will > be an > improvement. I think we don't have a rule to make the output the same as > struct > field. Existing message also don't follow it[1]. So, the current message looks > OK to me. > > [1] > pg_log(PG_VERBOSE, "relname: \"%s.%s\", reloid: %u, reltblspace: > \"%s\"", > rel_arr->rels[relnum].nspname, > rel_arr->rels[relnum].relname, > rel_arr->rels[relnum].reloid, > rel_arr->rels[relnum].tablespace);
Thanks for sharing your perspectie. I share similar sentiments. The initial question arose during the message translation. For the subsequent one, I opted not to translate the labels as they looked to be member names. From this viewpoint, "slot_name" is rather ambiguous. If there's no interest in modifying it, I will retain the original labels in translated messages, and that should suffice. regards. -- Kyotaro Horiguchi NTT Open Source Software Center
