> On 24 Mar 2022, at 14:07, Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com> wrote:
>
> On 24.03.22 06:17, Kyotaro Horiguchi wrote:
>> The comment and errmsg_plural don't seem to be consistent. When the
>> code was added by c4f2a0458d, it had only singular form and already
>> had the comment. After that 8032d76b5 turned it to errmsg_plural
>> ignoring the comment. It seems like a thinko of 8032d76b5.
>
> I have removed the comment.
I was just typing a reply to your upthread answer that we should just remove
the comment then, so a retroactive +1 on this =)
--
Daniel Gustafsson https://vmware.com/