On 08/23/2015 09:28 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
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.
Thanks for spotting that.
regards
--
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
