On Feb 16, 2:30 pm, benhoyt <benh...@gmail.com> wrote: > It seems to me that the logging module should use a millisecond-accurate > timestamp (time.clock) on Windows, > just like the "timeit" module does.
It's not an unreasonable request, though I don't think logging should be used to time things accurately. I'm also not sure about the exact form the solution might take. For example, are you assuming that your clock() call in logging is the very first call made? If it's not, then wouldn't this throw your calculations off? Or have I misunderstood how clock() works? Also, IIUC the resolution of clock() is < 1 usec, but as logging only prints to the nearest msec, won't you lose much of the benefit of the increased resolution? In your above example your request processing took 0.56 msec, so at best you would see a 1 msec difference between start and finish times in the log - that doesn't seem like it would be good enough; plus, if the process took less than 0.5 msec, then you might see identical start and finish times in the log. Or are you saying that the times should be formatted/printed to microsecond accuracy? Of course 3.2 is at rc3, and branches for 2.x are closed except for security fixes, so I'm not sure when this could go in to an official release ... Thanks & regards, Vinay Sajip -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
