From: Nikolay Shaplov <dhyan@nataraj.su>
To: pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org
Cc: Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>,
 Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com>,
 Nikita Glukhov <n.gluhov@postgrespro.ru>,
 "pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH][PROPOSAL] Add enum releation option type
Date: Wed, 03 Jul 2019 12:10:08 +0300
Message-ID: <15941756.bfKRYTai5T@x200m>
User-Agent: KMail/5.2.3 (Linux/4.9.0-8-amd64; KDE/5.28.0; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <20190701180628.GA17184@alvherre.pgsql>
References: <20190701180628.GA17184@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

=D0=92 =D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D1=8C=D0=BC=D0=B5 =D0=BE=D1=82 =D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=BD=
=D0=B5=D0=B4=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0=BD=D0=B8=D0=BA, 1 =D0=B8=D1=8E=D0=BB=D1=
=8F 2019 =D0=B3. 14:06:28 MSK =D0=BF=D0=BE=D0=BB=D1=8C=D0=B7=D0=BE=D0=B2=D0=
=B0=D1=82=D0=B5=D0=BB=D1=8C Alvaro=20
Herrera =D0=BD=D0=B0=D0=BF=D0=B8=D1=81=D0=B0=D0=BB:
> It strikes me that the way to avoid sentence construction is to have
> each enum reloption declare a string that it uses to list the values it
> accepts.  So for example we would have
>=20
> +#define GIST_OPTION_BUFFERING_ENUM_DEF {   \
> +   { "on",     GIST_OPTION_BUFFERING_ON },     \
> +   { "off",    GIST_OPTION_BUFFERING_OFF },    \
> +   { "auto",   GIST_OPTION_BUFFERING_AUTO },   \
> +   { (const char *) NULL, 0 }                  \
> +}
> +
> + GistBufferingValidMsg =3D gettext_noop("Valid values are \"on\", \"off\=
",
> and \"auto\".");
>=20
> I think that's the most contentious point on this patch at this point
> (though I may be misremembering).

I actually removed "and" from the list and let it be simple coma separated=
=20
list

 ERROR:  invalid value for "check_option" option                           =
    =20
 DETAIL:  Valid values are: "local", "cascaded".

Now we can translate left part, and subst list to the right part

errdetail("Valid values are: %s.", buf.data)));

It is not that nice as before, but quite acceptable, as I see it.


You do not see it that way?