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 -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers
