On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 07:43:53PM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > > On 6 Jun 2022, at 06:17, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 06, 2022 at 02:38:03AM +0200, Daniel Gustafsson wrote: > >> On 5 Jun 2022, at 11:19, Michael Paquier <mich...@paquier.xyz> wrote: > > >>> I have been toying with the idea of a sub-directory named with a > >>> timestamp (Unix time, like log_line_prefix's %n but this could be > >>> any format) under pg_upgrade_output.d/ and finished with the > >>> attached. > >> > >> I was thinking more along the lines of %m to make it (more) human > >> readable, but > >> I'm certainly not wedded to any format.
It seems important to use a format in most-significant-parts-first which sorts nicely by filename, but otherwise anything could be okay. > > Neither am I. I would not map exactly to %m as it uses whitespaces, > > but something like %Y%m%d_%H%M%S.%03d (3-digit ms for last part) would > > be fine? If there are other ideas for the format, just let me know. > > I think this makes more sense from an end-user perspective. Is it better to use "T" instead of "_" ? Apparently, that's ISO 8601, which can optionally use separators (YYYY-MM-DDTHH:MM:SS). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_8601#Combined_date_and_time_representations I was thinking this would not include fractional seconds. Maybe that would mean that the TAP tests would need to sleep(1) at some points... -- Justin
