On 3/22/15 2:59 PM, Tomas Vondra wrote:
> On 22.3.2015 20:25, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>> >
>>>> >>>The proposed format is much simpler to manage in a script, and if you're
>>>> >>>interested in runtime, its formatting would be less expensive than %t
>>>> >>>and
>>>> >>>%m.
>>> >>
>>> >>Maybe, but do we really need two? How about just %M?
>> >
>> >I guess Tomas put 2 formats because there was 2 time formats to
>> >begin with, but truncating/rouding if someone really wants seconds is
>> >quite easy.
> Yes, that's why I added two - to reflect %t and %m. I'm OK with using
> just one of them - I don't really care for the milliseconds at this
> moment, but I'd probably choose that option.
I assume we're using milli instead of micro because that's what everyone
else does? It seems odd since we natively support microseconds, but I
guess if milliseconds is more normal for logging that's OK.
FWIW, I don't see a problem with both %T and %M (whatever M ends up
meaning), but I don't really care either way.
--
Jim Nasby, Data Architect, Blue Treble Consulting
Data in Trouble? Get it in Treble! http://BlueTreble.com
