| From: | Tomas Vondra <tomas(dot)vondra(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Jim Nasby <Jim(dot)Nasby(at)BlueTreble(dot)com>, 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: | 2015-03-23 22:14:58 |
| Message-ID: | 55109062.4050808@2ndquadrant.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
On 23.3.2015 23:02, Jim Nasby wrote:
> On 3/22/15 2:59 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>> On 22.3.2015 20:25, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>
> I assume we're using milli instead of micro because that's what
> everyone else does? It seems odd since we natively support
> microseconds, but I guess if milliseconds is more normal for logging
> that's OK.
That's because %m is using milliseconds. I don't think microseconds are
really useful here ...
> FWIW, I don't see a problem with both %T and %M (whatever M ends up
> meaning), but I don't really care either way.
Same here.
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | David Steele | 2015-03-23 22:54:23 | Re: recovery_target_time ignored ? |
| Previous Message | Tomas Vondra | 2015-03-23 22:08:10 | Re: logical column ordering |