From: | Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr> |
---|---|
To: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
Cc: | PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: PATCH: numeric timestamp in log_line_prefix |
Date: | 2015-08-23 07:28:14 |
Message-ID: | alpine.DEB.2.10.1508230920200.29146@sto |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
>>> 1) fix the docs (explicitly say that it's a Unix epoch)
>>
>> I would add the word "numeric" in front of timestamp both in the doc and
>> in the postgresql.conf.sample, as it justifies the chosen %n.
>
> I think we're already using 'unix epoch' in the docs without explicitly
> stating that it's a numeric value, so I don't think we should use it here as
> it'd be inconsistent.
The point was to justify the choice of 'n' somehow.
>>> 2) handle 'padding' properly
>
> Hmmm, I'm not entirely sure how exactly the padding is supposed to work (IIRC
> I've never used it), and I thought it behaved correctly. But maybe not - I
> think the safest thing is copy what 't' does, so I've done that in attached
> v3 of the patch.
Ok. Version 3 applies and compiles, and padding now works as expected.
Here is a v4 that I also tested, and where I just removed a spurious '.'
in the millisecond format.
--
Fabien.
Attachment | Content-Type | Size |
---|---|---|
log-line-prefix-numeric-timestamp-v4.patch | text/x-diff | 1.9 KB |
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-08-23 11:25:37 | pgbench progress with timestamp |
Previous Message | Fabien COELHO | 2015-08-23 07:03:47 | Re: checkpointer continuous flushing |