[oops, stalled because of wrong From, resending just to the list]
On Sun, 22 Mar 2015, Tom Lane 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?
Yep, truncating or rounding if needed is quite easy.
> Also, having just one would open the door to calling it something like
> %u (for Unix timestamp),
Should be ok as well.
--
Fabien.
