Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks
От | Greg Stark |
---|---|
Тема | Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks |
Дата | |
Msg-id | CAM-w4HOZ0aamuyunbLSHd_55iULM9_G5cG9dzA+vu39Y+c+oNw@mail.gmail.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>) |
Ответы |
Out of office
Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks Re: WIP patch for consolidating misplaced-aggregate checks |
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 5:40 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: > Fair enough. I was not sold on doing that either. I would still like > to know if it's okay to use one string with %s for the cases where > there's not a good reason for the "context" to be more than just a > SQL keyword. Given that the SQL keyword is going to be an English word I can't imagine how this could be a big deal for translators. It might not match gender or case or something but only if the reader is automatically mentally translating the keyword into their language and then applying that language's rules to it. At least to me it makes sense to refer to "VALUES" as a singular noun or "LIMIT" as a generic male noun even though "limitation" would be feminine (I had to look that one up though so perhaps I'm not the best person to judge). -- greg
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: