On 22.3.2015 20:25, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>>> 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?
>
> 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.
>> Also, having just one would open the door to calling it something
>> like %u (for Unix timestamp),
>
> I guess that is okay as well.
Whatever, I don't really care. It's slightly confusing because unix
timestams are usually integers, but IMHO that's minor difference.
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services