Fabien COELHO <coe...@cri.ensmp.fr> writes:
>> On 2015-03-22 00:47:12 +0100, Tomas Vondra wrote:
>>> from time to time I need to correlate PostgreSQL logs to other logs,
>>> containing numeric timestamps - a prime example of that is pgbench. With
>>> %t and %m that's not quite trivial, because of timezones etc.
>> I have a hard time seing this is sufficient cause for adding more format
>> codes. They're not free runtime and documentation wise. -0.5 from me.
> 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?
Also, having just one would open the door to calling it something like
%u (for Unix timestamp), which would avoid introducing the concept of
upper case meaning something-different-from-but-related-to into
log_line_prefix format codes. We don't have any upper case codes in
there now, and I'd prefer not to go there if we don't have to.
regards, tom lane
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
