Corey Huinker <corey.huinker@gmail.com> writes:
> On Thu, Sep 1, 2016 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
>> Note that times from 1 second to 1 hour all get the nn:nn.nnn
>> treatment. I experimented with these variants for sub-minute times:
>> ...
>> but it seems like the first variant is not terribly intelligible and
>> the second variant is inconsistent with what happens for longer times.
> Well, if we're looking to be consistent, here's what interval does now:
> ...
> Should we just plug into whatever code that uses?
Well, that code's on the backend side so we're not going to just call it
in any case. And I think we don't want to be quite so verbose as to go up
to hh:mm:ss.fff as soon as we get past 1 second. However, comparing that
output to what I had suggests that maybe it's better to keep a leading
zero in two-digit fields, that is render times like "00:01.234",
"01:23.456", or "01:23:45.678" rather than suppressing the initial zero as
I had in my examples. It's an extra character but I think it reinforces
the meaning.
regards, tom lane
