> On Aug 8, 2018, at 3:18 PM, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
>> Yes, the hint should be changed. But I also think the error message
>> should be changed to be more appropriate to the procedure situation
>> (where is the return type?). Attached patch does both. Unlike your
>> patch, I kept the "DROP FUNCTION" message for the function case. It
>> might be too confusing otherwise. Thoughts?
>
> I'm not a translator, but if I were, stuff like "Use DROP %s %s first."
> would probably confuse me. IMO it's too close to assembling a message
> out of parts, even if it's true that neither %s needs translation.
> I think you'd be better off with
>
> isprocedure ? errhint("Use DROP PROCEDURE %s first.", ...)
> : errhint("Use DROP FUNCTION %s first.", ...)
>
> Or if that seems too carpal-tunnel-inducing, maybe a workable compromise
> is
>
> dropcmd = (prokind == PROKIND_PROCEDURE ? "DROP PROCEDURE" : "DROP
> FUNCTION");
>
> /* translator: first %s is DROP FUNCTION or DROP PROCEDURE */
> errhint("Use %s %s first.", dropcmd, ...)
>
> Looks reasonable other than that quibble.To help move this along, I went ahead and applied Tom’s first suggestion to the patch. I tested the various scenarios and it seemed to work. Jonathan
0001-Improve-error-messages-for-CREATE-OR-REPLACE-PROCEDU-v2.patch
Description: Binary data
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
