Le 01/01/2011 06:05, Robert Haas a écrit : > On Fri, Dec 31, 2010 at 8:48 AM, Peter Eisentraut <pete...@gmx.net> wrote: >> On tor, 2010-12-30 at 11:03 -0500, Robert Haas wrote: >>> No, quite the opposite. With the other approach, you needed: >>> >>> constraints cannot be used on views >>> constraints cannot be used on composite types >>> constraints cannot be used on TOAST tables >>> constraints cannot be used on indexes >>> constraints cannot be used on foreign tables >>> >>> With this, you just need: >>> >>> constraints can only be used on tables >> >> At the beginning of this thread you said that the error messages should >> focus on what you tried to do, not what you could do instead. > > Yeah, and I still believe that. I'm having difficulty coming up with > a workable approach, though. It would be simple enough if we could > write: > > /* translator: first %s is a feature, second %s is a relation type */ > %s cannot be used on %s > > ...but I think this is likely to cause some translation headaches. >
Actually, this is simply not translatable in some languages. We had the same issue on pgAdmin, and we resolved this by having quite a big number of new strings to translate. Harder one time for the translator, but results in a much better experience for the user. >> Also, in this particular case, the user could very well assume that a >> TOAST table or a foreign table is a table. > > There's a limited amount we can do about confused users, but it is > true that the negative phrasing is better for that case. > It's at least better for the translator. -- Guillaume http://www.postgresql.fr http://dalibo.com -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
