On Sun, Oct 2, 2016 at 1:20 PM, Christoph Berg <m...@debian.org> wrote:

> Re: Tom Lane 2016-09-29 <18642.1475159...@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> > > Possibly the longer version could be added as an example in the
> > > documentation.
> >
> > I suspect that simply having a nonempty default in the first place
> > is going to do more to raise peoples' awareness than anything we
> > could do in the documentation.  But perhaps an example along these
> > lines would be useful for showing proper use of %q.
> Patch attached. (Still using %t, I don't think %m makes sense for the
> default.)

I don't agree with that part.  When looking at sections of log files that
people post on help forums, I've often wished people had shared
milliseconds, and I've never wished they had truncated them off.

If two messages are separated by 0.950 seconds, it can have entirely
different implications than if they are separated by 0.002 seconds.

What is the cost of using %m, other than 4 (rather compressible) bytes per
log entry?



Reply via email to