[PATCH] In psql \?, add [+] annotation where appropriate

Started by Matthijs van der Vleutenabout 5 years ago3 messageshackers
Jump to latest
#1Matthijs van der Vleuten
postgresql@zr40.nl

Hi,

User inoas on IRC channel #postgresql noted that \? does not describe \do as supporting the + option. It does however support this option, as do \dAp and \dy.

This patch adds the annotation to the description of these commands in \?.

While adding it to the translation files I noticed some obvious errors, so this patch fixes the following as well:

* correct inconsistent alignment. This was especially egregious in fr.po. Differing alignment across sections in es.po is preserved as this may have been a deliberate choice by the translator.
* cs.po: remove extraneous newline
* es.po: replace incorrect mention of \do with the correct \dAc, \dAf and \dAo
* fr.po: merge some small lines that still fit within 78 chars
* fr.po: remove [brackets] denoting optional parameters, when these aren't present in the English text
* fr.po: \sv was shown as accepting "FONCTION". This is replaced with "VUE".
* fr.po: \t was missing its optional [on|off] parameter.
* tr.po: fix typo at \d
* uk.po: add missing newline at \c

Regards,
Matthijs

Attachments:

0001-In-psql-add-annotation.patchtext/x-patch; name=0001-In-psql-add-annotation.patchDownload+227-235
#2Neil Chen
carpenter.nail.cz@gmail.com
In reply to: Matthijs van der Vleuten (#1)
Re: [PATCH] In psql \?, add [+] annotation where appropriate

The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, passed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: tested, passed
Documentation: tested, passed

Hi, thank you for your work. I think this is a meaningful patch that should be merged.

#3Michael Paquier
michael@paquier.xyz
In reply to: Neil Chen (#2)
Re: [PATCH] In psql \?, add [+] annotation where appropriate

On Tue, May 25, 2021 at 06:10:15AM +0000, Neil Chen wrote:

Hi, thank you for your work. I think this is a meaningful patch that
should be merged.

Merged, then. I have scanned the rest of the area and did not notice
any other inconsistencies.
--
Michael