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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers