Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix

* Robert Haas (robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com) wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 11:20 AM, Christoph Berg <myon(at)debian(dot)org> wrote:
> > Re: Jeff Janes 2016-10-12 <CAMkU=1zmOp5T70MX508nwFf8tvv2jOT+hGwLq8fNHLSxp-wVmQ(at)mail(dot)gmail(dot)com>
> >> Do you think the pushback will come from people who just accept the
> >> defaults?
> >
> > I'm concerned about readability. "2016-10-12 20:14:30.449 CEST" is a
> > lot of digits. My eyes can parse "20:14:30" as a timestamp, but
> > "20:14:30.449" looks more like an IP address. (Admittedly I don't have
> > experience with reading %m logs.)
> >
> > Overall, I'd prefer %t but %m would be ok as well.
>
> I'm fine with either! Both are much better than the empty string.
> One of the problems with the status quo is that many users don't even
> realize that log_line_prefix exists, so they don't configure it at
> all. They don't even realize that they have the option to add a
> prefix. I think configuring a non-empty default will be both better
> by default and more likely to make people realize that they have
> choices.

For my 2c, I'd rather have %m, but I definitely agree with Robert that
we need to do *something* here and if the only thing holding us back is
%t vs. %m, then let's just pick one and move on. I'll just hold my nose
when I see the default and change it to %m.

Thanks!

Stephen