Re: Read-only vs read only vs readonly

2021-09-07 Thread Magnus Hagander
On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 8:10 AM Kyotaro Horiguchi
 wrote:
>
> At Thu, 2 Sep 2021 22:07:02 +, "Bossart, Nathan"  
> wrote in
> > On 9/2/21, 11:30 AM, "Magnus Hagander"  wrote:
> > > I had a customer point out to me that we're inconsistent in how we
> > > spell read-only. Turns out we're not as inconsistent as I initially
> > > thought :), but that they did manage to spot the one actual log
> > > message we have that writes it differently than everything else -- but
> > > that broke their grepping...
> > >
> > > Almost everywhere we use read-only. Attached patch changes the one log
> > > message where we didn't, as well as a few places in the docs for it. I
> > > did not bother with things like comments in the code.
> > >
> > > Two questions:
> > >
> > > 1. Is it worth fixing? Or just silly nitpicking?
> >
> > It seems entirely reasonable to me to consistently use "read-only" in
> > the log messages and documentation.
> >
> > > 2. What about translations? This string exists in translations --
> > > should we just "fix" it there, without touching the translated string?
> > > Or try to fix both? Or leave it for the translators who will get a
> > > diff on it?
> >
> > I don't have a strong opinion, but if I had to choose, I would say to
> > leave it to the translators to decide.
>
> +1 for both.  As a translator, it seems that that kind of changes are
> usual.  Many changes about full-stops, spacings, capitalizing and so
> happen especially at near-release season like now.

Thanks for the input. I've applied this and back-patched to 14 since
it's not out yet and there is translation still do be done. I didn't
backpatch it further back than that to avoid the need for translation
updates there.

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/




Re: Read-only vs read only vs readonly

2021-09-03 Thread Kyotaro Horiguchi
At Thu, 2 Sep 2021 22:07:02 +, "Bossart, Nathan"  
wrote in 
> On 9/2/21, 11:30 AM, "Magnus Hagander"  wrote:
> > I had a customer point out to me that we're inconsistent in how we
> > spell read-only. Turns out we're not as inconsistent as I initially
> > thought :), but that they did manage to spot the one actual log
> > message we have that writes it differently than everything else -- but
> > that broke their grepping...
> >
> > Almost everywhere we use read-only. Attached patch changes the one log
> > message where we didn't, as well as a few places in the docs for it. I
> > did not bother with things like comments in the code.
> > 
> > Two questions:
> >
> > 1. Is it worth fixing? Or just silly nitpicking?
> 
> It seems entirely reasonable to me to consistently use "read-only" in
> the log messages and documentation.
> 
> > 2. What about translations? This string exists in translations --
> > should we just "fix" it there, without touching the translated string?
> > Or try to fix both? Or leave it for the translators who will get a
> > diff on it?
> 
> I don't have a strong opinion, but if I had to choose, I would say to
> leave it to the translators to decide.

+1 for both.  As a translator, it seems that that kind of changes are
usual.  Many changes about full-stops, spacings, capitalizing and so
happen especially at near-release season like now.

regards.

-- 
Kyotaro Horiguchi
NTT Open Source Software Center




Re: Read-only vs read only vs readonly

2021-09-02 Thread Bossart, Nathan
On 9/2/21, 11:30 AM, "Magnus Hagander"  wrote:
> I had a customer point out to me that we're inconsistent in how we
> spell read-only. Turns out we're not as inconsistent as I initially
> thought :), but that they did manage to spot the one actual log
> message we have that writes it differently than everything else -- but
> that broke their grepping...
>
> Almost everywhere we use read-only. Attached patch changes the one log
> message where we didn't, as well as a few places in the docs for it. I
> did not bother with things like comments in the code.
> 
> Two questions:
>
> 1. Is it worth fixing? Or just silly nitpicking?

It seems entirely reasonable to me to consistently use "read-only" in
the log messages and documentation.

> 2. What about translations? This string exists in translations --
> should we just "fix" it there, without touching the translated string?
> Or try to fix both? Or leave it for the translators who will get a
> diff on it?

I don't have a strong opinion, but if I had to choose, I would say to
leave it to the translators to decide.

Nathan



Read-only vs read only vs readonly

2021-09-02 Thread Magnus Hagander
I had a customer point out to me that we're inconsistent in how we
spell read-only. Turns out we're not as inconsistent as I initially
thought :), but that they did manage to spot the one actual log
message we have that writes it differently than everything else -- but
that broke their grepping...

Almost everywhere we use read-only. Attached patch changes the one log
message where we didn't, as well as a few places in the docs for it. I
did not bother with things like comments in the code.

Two questions:

1. Is it worth fixing? Or just silly nitpicking?

2. What about translations? This string exists in translations --
should we just "fix" it there, without touching the translated string?
Or try to fix both? Or leave it for the translators who will get a
diff on it?

-- 
 Magnus Hagander
 Me: https://www.hagander.net/
 Work: https://www.redpill-linpro.com/
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml
index 2b2c70a26e..2f0def9b19 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/catalogs.sgml
@@ -9602,7 +9602,7 @@ SCRAM-SHA-256$iteration count:
   
 
   
-   The pg_available_extensions view is read only.
+   The pg_available_extensions view is read-only.
   
  
 
@@ -9726,8 +9726,8 @@ SCRAM-SHA-256$iteration count:
   
 
   
-   The pg_available_extension_versions view is read
-   only.
+   The pg_available_extension_versions view is
+   read-only.
   
  
 
@@ -10042,7 +10042,7 @@ SCRAM-SHA-256$iteration count:
   
 
   
-   The pg_cursors view is read only.
+   The pg_cursors view is read-only.
   
 
  
@@ -11164,7 +11164,7 @@ SELECT * FROM pg_locks pl LEFT JOIN pg_prepared_xacts ppx
   
 
   
-   The pg_prepared_statements view is read only.
+   The pg_prepared_statements view is read-only.
   
  
 
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/high-availability.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/high-availability.sgml
index 22af7dbf51..c43f214020 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/high-availability.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/high-availability.sgml
@@ -1093,7 +1093,7 @@ primary_slot_name = 'node_a_slot'

 

-Read only transactions and transaction rollbacks need not wait for
+Read-only transactions and transaction rollbacks need not wait for
 replies from standby servers. Subtransaction commits do not wait for
 responses from standby servers, only top-level commits. Long
 running actions such as data loading or index building do not wait
@@ -1962,7 +1962,7 @@ LOG:  entering standby mode
 ... then some time later ...
 
 LOG:  consistent recovery state reached
-LOG:  database system is ready to accept read only connections
+LOG:  database system is ready to accept read-only connections
 
 
 Consistency information is recorded once per checkpoint on the primary.
@@ -2191,7 +2191,7 @@ HINT:  You can then restart the server after making the necessary configuration

 

-Currently, temporary table creation is not allowed during read only
+Currently, temporary table creation is not allowed during read-only
 transactions, so in some cases existing scripts will not run correctly.
 This restriction might be relaxed in a later release. This is
 both an SQL Standard compliance issue and a technical issue.
@@ -2290,7 +2290,7 @@ HINT:  You can then restart the server after making the necessary configuration
 
  Full knowledge of running transactions is required before snapshots
  can be taken. Transactions that use large numbers of subtransactions
- (currently greater than 64) will delay the start of read only
+ (currently greater than 64) will delay the start of read-only
  connections until the completion of the longest running write transaction.
  If this situation occurs, explanatory messages will be sent to the server log.
 
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml
index d358bbe4a6..cfdcb74221 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/mvcc.sgml
@@ -526,7 +526,7 @@ ERROR:  could not serialize access due to concurrent update
 transaction sees a completely stable view of the database.  However,
 this view will not necessarily always be consistent with some serial
 (one at a time) execution of concurrent transactions of the same level.
-For example, even a read only transaction at this level may see a
+For example, even a read-only transaction at this level may see a
 control record updated to show that a batch has been completed but
 not see one of the detail records which is logically
 part of the batch because it read an earlier revision of the control
diff --git a/src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c b/src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c
index 9c2c98614a..63043ed8d1 100644
--- a/src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c
+++ b/src/backend/postmaster/postmaster.c
@@ -5199,7 +5199,7 @@ sigusr1_handler(SIGNAL_ARGS)
 		PgStatPID = pgstat_start();
 
 		ereport(LOG,
-(errmsg("database system is ready to accept read only connections")));
+(errmsg("database system is ready to