Tom Lane wrote:
>
> Peter Eisentraut <peter_e@gmx.net> writes:
> > I am opposed to the unreadable, non-standard timestamp format.
>
> I didn't see the point of Ed's arbitrary change in YMD format, but
> what's wrong with adding fractional seconds? Our own timestamp code
> is willing to format fractional seconds, so we can hardly call it
> nonstandard.
Out of respect to existing log-processing programs, I tried to adhere to
the pgsql traditional (pre-7.1) format, except that I'd added a 4-digit
year I'd been patching since 6.5.2, which probably ended up breaking them
anyway.
> > I also don't see the point of microsecond granularity.
>
> What Ed implemented (which is what was in 7.0 and before) is millisecond
> resolution, which does seem worthwhile; certainly one-second resolution
> is pretty coarse on some machines these days.
Yes, microsecond was a typo. I meant milliseconds.
> I was thinking of keeping the YMD display format the same but otherwise
> adopting the patch.
That'd be an improvement. Unfortunately, the ISO 8601 standard is not
much more readable:
2001-05-13T10:19:44,085-05:00
That's a literal 'T' designating the time portion and a comma separating
seconds and milliseconds (http://www.iso.ch/markete/8601.pdf).
Regards,
Ed Loehr
