On Tue, Feb 25, 2025 at 04:25:40PM +, David Steele wrote:
> On 2/25/25 04:07, Benoit Lobréau wrote:
>> Thank you Michael and David.
>> I never paid attention to thoses...
Don't worry about that. There is a lot of Postgres-ism in this code
base, and we all keep learning stuff :D
> This looks
On 2/25/25 04:07, Benoit Lobréau wrote:
On 2/24/25 11:33 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 05:30:35PM +, David Steele wrote:
+ /* translator: %s is a backup_label or
pg_control file */
See for example PostmasterMain() with the "/* translator
On 2/24/25 11:33 PM, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 05:30:35PM +, David Steele wrote:
+/* translator: %s is a backup_label or
pg_control file */
See for example PostmasterMain() with the "/* translator: %s is a
configuration file */".
Thank
On Mon, Feb 24, 2025 at 05:30:35PM +, David Steele wrote:
> +/* translator: %s is a backup_label or
> pg_control file */
See for example PostmasterMain() with the "/* translator: %s is a
configuration file */".
> + errdetail("Latest checkpoint in %s
On 2/24/25 10:21, Benoit Lobréau wrote:
On 2/24/25 2:05 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
I think that you have the right idea here, avoiding the duplication
of the errdetail() which feels itchy when looking at the patch.
Done this way in the attached patch.
This looks good to me.
This should ha
On 2/24/25 2:05 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
I think that you have the right idea here, avoiding the duplication
of the errdetail() which feels itchy when looking at the patch.
Done this way in the attached patch.
This should have a note for translators that this field refers to a file
name.
On Sat, Feb 22, 2025 at 04:17:44PM +, David Steele wrote:
> I think for translation purposes this is probably how it needs to be but I
> wonder if we could do something like:
>
> errdetail("Latest checkpoint in %s is at %X/%X <...>",
> haveBackupLabel ? "pg_control" ? "backup_label",
On 2/21/25 09:09, Benoit Lobréau wrote:
On 2/20/25 4:40 PM, David Steele wrote:
Benoit -- this was your idea. Did you want to submit a patch yourself?
Here is an attempt at that. I kept the wording I used above. Is it fine
to repeat the whole ereport block twice?
I think for translation pur
On 2/20/25 4:40 PM, David Steele wrote:
Benoit -- this was your idea. Did you want to submit a patch yourself?
Here is an attempt at that. I kept the wording I used above. Is it fine
to repeat the whole ereport block twice?
--
Benoit Lobréau
Consultant
http://dalibo.com
From 44459bf799fca517
On 2/19/25 19:45, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 05:35:18PM +, David Steele wrote:
I like this idea but I would prefer to get the patch committed as-is first.
The reason is that I'm hoping to see this batch-patched (since it is a bug)
and that is less likely if the message wo
On Wed, Feb 19, 2025 at 05:35:18PM +, David Steele wrote:
> I like this idea but I would prefer to get the patch committed as-is first.
> The reason is that I'm hoping to see this batch-patched (since it is a bug)
> and that is less likely if the message wording is change.
(Had this thread fla
On 2/19/25 03:51, Benoit Lobréau wrote:
I think the changes make sense. Would it be helpful to add the origin of
the checkpoint record we are referring to ? (i.e. control file or backup
label).
For example:
* Latest checkpoint in the control file is at %X/%X on timeline %u,
* Checkpoint loc
Hi,
I think the changes make sense. Would it be helpful to add the origin of
the checkpoint record we are referring to ? (i.e. control file or backup
label).
For example:
* Latest checkpoint in the control file is at %X/%X on timeline %u,
* Checkpoint location in the backup_label file is at
On 12/20/24 23:28, Andrey M. Borodin wrote:
On 20 Dec 2024, at 20:37, David Steele wrote:
"Latest checkpoint is at %X/%X on timeline %u, but in the history of the requested
timeline, the server forked off from that timeline at %X/%X."
I think errdetai here is very hard to follow. I seem to
> On 20 Dec 2024, at 20:37, David Steele wrote:
>
> "Latest checkpoint is at %X/%X on timeline %u, but in the history of the
> requested timeline, the server forked off from that timeline at %X/%X."
I think errdetai here is very hard to follow. I seem to understand what is
going on after re
15 matches
Mail list logo
