Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix

Re: Jeff Janes 2016-10-12 <CAMkU=1zmOp5T70MX508nwFf8tvv2jOT+hGwLq8fNHLSxp-wVmQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Do you think the pushback will come from people who just accept the
> defaults?

I'm concerned about readability. "2016-10-12 20:14:30.449 CEST" is a
lot of digits. My eyes can parse "20:14:30" as a timestamp, but
"20:14:30.449" looks more like an IP address. (Admittedly I don't have
experience with reading %m logs.)

Overall, I'd prefer %t but %m would be ok as well.

Christoph