David Steele <david@pgmasters.net> writes:
> On 5/15/20 9:34 AM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I vote for following the backup_label precedent; that's stood for quite
>> some years now.
> Of course, my actual preference is to use epoch time which is easy to
> work with and eliminates the possibility of conversion errors. It is
> also compact.
Well, if we did that then it'd be sufficiently different from the backup
label as to remove any risk of confusion. But "easy to work with" is in
the eye of the beholder; do we really want a format that's basically
unreadable to the naked eye?
regards, tom lane
