Feedback-ID: ie3de48e3:Fastmail
Date: Thu, 11 Jun 2026 22:21:16 +0200
From: =?utf-8?Q?=C3=81lvaro?= Herrera <alvherre@kurilemu.de>
To: Peter Smith <smithpb2250@gmail.com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>,
	Peter Eisentraut <peter@eisentraut.org>
Subject: Re: Redundant/mis-use of _(x) gettext macro?
Message-ID: <aisX7lLTLDJY4I4W@alvherre.pgsql>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <airjxKXx7aTG8kfE@alvherre.pgsql>
Archived-At: 
 <https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/aisX7lLTLDJY4I4W%40alvherre.pgsql>
Precedence: bulk

On 2026-Jun-11, Álvaro Herrera wrote:

> In the end I decided to go with the flow and changed to use "first"
> logic rather than "last".  I also figured that we should change the
> other two places you pointed out at the start of the thread to use the
> same coding style.  Since this is mostly cosmetic, I don't feel
> compelled to back-patch it, and pushed only to master.
> 
> Another place I noticed while looking this over is psql's
> describeOneTableDetails(), per the attached patch.  It's essentially
> more of the same, but arguably different enough that I judged it
> warranted posting before pushing.

Crap, I just noticed that Peter Eisentraut had made himself committer of
this CF entry.  Apologies, I've had this marked as pending on my inbox
for so long that it didn't occur to me to check the CF page.

-- 
Álvaro Herrera               48°01'N 7°57'E  —  https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/