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