Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Christoph Berg
Subject Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix
Date
Msg-id 20161012182044.44ctmiwtcg7e72lz@msg.df7cb.de
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix  (Jeff Janes <jeff.janes@gmail.com>)
Responses Re: Non-empty default log_line_prefix
List pgsql-hackers
Re: Jeff Janes 2016-10-12 <CAMkU=1zmOp5T70MX508nwFf8tvv2jOT+hGwLq8fNHLSxp-wVmQ@mail.gmail.com>
> Do you think the pushback will come from people who just accept the
> defaults?

I'm concerned about readability. "2016-10-12 20:14:30.449 CEST" is a
lot of digits. My eyes can parse "20:14:30" as a timestamp, but
"20:14:30.449" looks more like an IP address. (Admittedly I don't have
experience with reading %m logs.)

Overall, I'd prefer %t but %m would be ok as well.

Christoph



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Parallel tuplesort (for parallel B-Tree index creation)
Next
From: Heikki Linnakangas
Date:
Subject: Re: Polyphase merge is obsolete