Magnus Hagander <mag...@hagander.net> writes:
> On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 19:38, Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> While I'm looking at this, I notice that here (and in some other places
>> in pg_hba.conf) we say "not supported on this platform" which seems
>> rather bogus to me. It implies that it's not possible to have SSL
>> support on the user's machine, which is most likely not the case.
>> I'd be happier with "not supported by this build of PostgreSQL" or some
>> such wording. Thoughts?
> There seems to be a number of cases in libpq, and also in pg_locale.c
> that says just hat. But in guc.c, we say "SSL is not supported by
> this build". If we change it, we should change it to the same
> (including whether "of PostgreSQL" is included).
> Refering to the build seems more logical, yes.
Since there's already precedent for saying "this build" full stop, let's
just go with that. I was already thinking that including the product
name in translatable strings would cause issues for repackagers.
Barring objections, I'll backpatch the added error check, but change the
wording of the existing messages only in HEAD.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
