Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@2ndquadrant.com> writes:
> Tom Lane wrote:
>> TBH, my answer to the rhetorical question is "no". There is nothing
>> weird about the timestamps %t emits now, and no reason why they should
>> need to be configurable, except that somebody thinks it's easier to
>> lobby us to complicate our software than to fix whatever they have that
>> can't consume standard timestamp format.
> I imagine pgBadger/pgFouine wouldn't be happy with the timestamp being
> infinitely configurable.
Yeah, if the repercussions were confined to the server code that would be
one thing, but there are a number of external tools that would be affected
as well. The "complication" cost has to be thought about that way rather
than evaluated in isolation.
You could argue that pgBadger et al could just document that they don't
support nonstandard timestamp formats ... but then it's really unclear why
we're shifting the complexity burden in this direction rather than asking
why the one proprietary application that wants the other thing can't cope
with the existing format choice.
regards, tom lane