Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vLkLn-008uW1-2w for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 15:44:07 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vLkLm-00DaLx-1n for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 15:44:06 +0000 Received: from makus.postgresql.org ([2001:4800:3e1:1::229]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vLkLm-00DaLo-0r for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 15:44:06 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([68.162.161.243]) by makus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1vLkLk-000MQg-08 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 15:44:05 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id 5AJFhw011462039; Wed, 19 Nov 2025 10:43:58 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: Peter Eisentraut cc: Thomas Munro , Kyotaro Horiguchi , pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: PRI?64 vs Visual Studio (2022) In-reply-to: References: <20250331.152829.1921392690375275165.horikyota.ntt@gmail.com> <001bdc3b-ef94-4f24-b017-ac8ff0a2ea55@eisentraut.org> <1372793.1763519315@sss.pgh.pa.us> <1377512.1763522154@sss.pgh.pa.us> Comments: In-reply-to Peter Eisentraut message dated "Wed, 19 Nov 2025 10:19:47 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <1462037.1763567038.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Wed, 19 Nov 2025 10:43:58 -0500 Message-ID: <1462038.1763567038@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Archived-At: Precedence: bulk Peter Eisentraut writes: > On 19.11.25 04:15, Tom Lane wrote: >> I think we should do it >> honestly with a regression test. It doesn't need to be very >> complicated --- I think checking one message in one translation is >> sufficient, so long as it includes a PRI?64 usage. > We could generate an English message catalog that translates all > messages unchanged, and run the whole test suite with that. This would > exercise the whole gettext run-time machinery. ... except that if it were actually doing nothing whatsoever, you could not tell. This seems particularly troublesome for gettext, since its fallback behavior is exactly to return the given string. I'd prefer a test that fails in a visible way. regards, tom lane