Re: PATCH: numeric timestamp in log_line_prefix
От | Tomas Vondra |
---|---|
Тема | Re: PATCH: numeric timestamp in log_line_prefix |
Дата | |
Msg-id | 55D9152D.30803@2ndquadrant.com обсуждение исходный текст |
Ответ на | Re: PATCH: numeric timestamp in log_line_prefix (Fabien COELHO <coelho@cri.ensmp.fr>) |
Ответы |
Re: PATCH: numeric timestamp in log_line_prefix
|
Список | pgsql-hackers |
On 08/22/2015 09:54 PM, Fabien COELHO wrote: > > Hello Tomas, > > Review of v2: > >> attached is a v2 of the patch, reworked based on the comments. > > The patch applies cleanly to head, it compiles, I tested it and it > mostly work as expected, see below. > >> 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. > >> 2) handle 'padding' properly > > I tried that without success. ISTM that what is padded is the empty > string, and the timestamp is just printed on its own without padding > afterwards. > > I think that it should use a string buffer and then used the padding on > the string, as case 'c' or 't' for instance. 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. regards -- Tomas Vondra http://www.2ndQuadrant.com PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
Вложения
В списке pgsql-hackers по дате отправления: