| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Fabien COELHO <fabien(dot)coelho(at)mines-paristech(dot)fr>, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Cc: | Andres Freund <andres(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: PATCH: numeric timestamp in log_line_prefix |
| Date: | 2015-03-22 19:59:18 |
| Message-ID: | 550F1F16.9090306@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 22.3.2015 20:25, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>>> The proposed format is much simpler to manage in a script, and if you're
>>> interested in runtime, its formatting would be less expensive than %t
>>> and
>>> %m.
>>
>> Maybe, but do we really need two? How about just %M?
>
> I guess Tomas put 2 formats because there was 2 time formats to
> begin with, but truncating/rouding if someone really wants seconds is
> quite easy.
Yes, that's why I added two - to reflect %t and %m. I'm OK with using
just one of them - I don't really care for the milliseconds at this
moment, but I'd probably choose that option.
>> Also, having just one would open the door to calling it something
>> like %u (for Unix timestamp),
>
> I guess that is okay as well.
Whatever, I don't really care. It's slightly confusing because unix
timestams are usually integers, but IMHO that's minor difference.
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Andrew Gierth | 2015-03-22 20:01:09 | Re: Abbreviated keys for Numeric |
| Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2015-03-22 19:54:37 | Re: Remove fsync ON/OFF as a visible option? |