On 08/23/2015 09:28 AM, Fabien COELHO wrote:
>
>>>> 1) fix the docs (explicitly say that it's a Unix epoch)
>>>
>>> I would add the word "numeric" in front of timestamp both in the doc and
>>> in the postgresql.conf.sample, as it justifies the chosen %n.
>>
>> I think we're already using 'unix epoch' in the docs without
>> explicitly stating that it's a numeric value, so I don't think we
>> should use it here as it'd be inconsistent.
>
> The point was to justify the choice of 'n' somehow.
>
>>>> 2) handle 'padding' properly
>>
>> Hmmm, I'm not entirely sure how exactly the padding is supposed to
>> work (IIRC I've never used it), and I thought it behaved correctly.
>> But maybe not - I think the safest thing is copy what 't' does, so
>> I've done that in attached v3 of the patch.
>
> Ok. Version 3 applies and compiles, and padding now works as expected.
>
> Here is a v4 that I also tested, and where I just removed a spurious '.'
> in the millisecond format.
Thanks for spotting that.
regards
--
Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
