On 2022-Jun-14, David Fetter wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2022 at 04:22:42PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > A different line of thought is to extend %t to provide a precision > > field a la sprintf, so that for example "%.3t" is equivalent to > > "%m" and "%.6t" does what David wants, and we won't have to > > search for a new escape letter when the day arrives that > > somebody wants nanosecond resolution. The same could be done > > with %n, avoiding the need to find a different escape letter > > for that. > > I'll build this more sprintf-like thing if not doing so prevents the > change from happening, but frankly, I don't really see a point in it > because the next "log timestamps at some random negative power of 10 > second granularity" requirement I see will be the first. Do we *have* to provide support for arbitrary numbers of digits, though? We could provide support for only %.3t and %.6t specifically, and not worry about other cases (error: width not supported). When somebody wants %.9t in ten years, we won't have to fight for which letter to pick. And I agree that widening %m for everybody without recourse is not great. -- Álvaro Herrera Breisgau, Deutschland — https://www.EnterpriseDB.com/
