On 2020-Jan-29, Michael Paquier wrote: > On Tue, Jan 28, 2020 at 03:51:54PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote: > > I quickly reread that thread and I don't see that there's any firm > > consensus there in favor of "read %d of %zu" over "read only %d of %zu > > bytes". Now, if most people prefer the former, so be it, but I don't > > think that's clear from that thread. > > The argument of consistency falls in favor of the former on HEAD: > $ git grep "could not read" | grep "read %d of %zu" | wc -l > 59 > $ git grep "could not read" | grep "read only %d of %zu" | wc -l > 0
In the discussion that led to 811b6e36a9e2 I did suggest to use "read only M of N" instead, but there wasn't enough discussion on that fine point so we settled on what you now call prevalent without a lot of support specifically on that. I guess it was enough of an improvement over what was there. But like Robert, I too prefer the wording that includes "only" and "bytes" over the wording that doesn't. I'll let it be known that from a translator's point of view, it's a ten-seconds job to update a fuzzy string from not including "only" and "bytes" to one that does. So let's not make that an argument for not changing. -- Álvaro Herrera https://www.2ndQuadrant.com/ PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
