Hannu Krosing <hannuk(at)google(dot)com> writes:
> On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 11:38 PM Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
>> What do you think of instead specifying the limit as the maximum
>> running-percentage to print, with a default of say 99.99%? That
>> gives me results like
> I agree that percentage covered is a much better metric indeed.
> And I am equally ok with a default of either 99.9% or 99.99%.
OK, pushed after a bit more fooling with the documentation.
regards, tom lane