On Mon, 2015-09-07 at 18:28 -0300, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> I noticed %t, but I don't think we care since the precision is so poor.
> Making m and n work in unison seems enough. I think it would be
> reasonably simple to handle %t in the same way, but I'm not sure we
> care.
OK.
> I think the extra ugliness is warranted, since it's not THAT much
> additional ugliness, and not doing it could be considered a regression;
> apparently strftime can be slower even than snprintf, so doing it twice
> per log message might be excessive overhead.
Patch attached. Please take a quick look.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
