Re: BUG #7811: strlen(NULL) cause psql crash
От | Heikki Linnakangas |
---|---|
Тема | Re: BUG #7811: strlen(NULL) cause psql crash |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 50F5AAE9.8050105@vmware.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: BUG #7811: strlen(NULL) cause psql crash (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Re: BUG #7811: strlen(NULL) cause psql crash
|
Список | pgsql-bugs |
On 15.01.2013 21:13, Tom Lane wrote: > Heikki Linnakangas<hlinnakangas@vmware.com> writes: >> On 15.01.2013 20:29, Tom Lane wrote: >>> But you already introduced "none" as a stand-alone (and probably almost >>> untranslatable without context) string. That's better? > >> I figured it would be. One little untranslated string in parens, versus >> the whole is untranslated. I'm happy to change it if you feel otherwise, >> though, I don't feel strongly about it myself. > > Well, I shouldn't be opining too strongly on translatability issues. > Other people would have much-better-qualified opinions as to how well > it'll read if "none" has to be translated by itself. > > But as to the behavior when the new message hasn't been translated yet: > the only case where anyone would see the untranslated message is if they > were in fact not connected, which we know is a seldom-exercised corner > case (else this bug would've been noticed long ago). So it might not be > worth arguing about. But ISTM that somebody whose English was weak > might not grasp that "none" (untranslated) wasn't meant to be a name. Hmm, I wonder if an empty string would be better? It'd look a bit odd, but at least it would not mislead you to think you're connected to a database called "none". - Heikki
В списке pgsql-bugs по дате отправления: