Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure

From: Robert Haas <robertmhaas(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
Cc: Fabien COELHO <coelho(at)cri(dot)ensmp(dot)fr>, Steve Singer <steve(at)ssinger(dot)info>, PostgreSQL Developers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure
Date: 2017-11-21 20:40:16
Message-ID: CA+TgmoZYUdT_gJgXxd1DTqJ-6g5-mm8h5oUPsSBpAcvsnfH+0Q@mail.gmail.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> wrote:
> Seems like a good idea, but the way you've written it is inconsistent
> with the "n/m" notation used just above. I'd suggest
>
> ... latency limit: 33 (33/33, 100.000 %)
>
> or just
>
> ... latency limit: 33/33 (100.000 %)

Oh, yeah. That last one sounds good; no reason to print the same
value more than once.

--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Tomas Vondra 2017-11-21 20:42:37 Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods
Previous Message Robert Haas 2017-11-21 20:39:32 Re: Logical Replication and triggers