Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Robert Haas
Subject Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure
Date
Msg-id CA+TgmoZYUdT_gJgXxd1DTqJ-6g5-mm8h5oUPsSBpAcvsnfH+0Q@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
Responses Re: [HACKERS] pgbench regression test failure  (Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>)
List pgsql-hackers
On Tue, Nov 21, 2017 at 3:28 PM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.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


pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Robert Haas
Date:
Subject: Re: Logical Replication and triggers
Next
From: Tomas Vondra
Date:
Subject: Re: [HACKERS] Custom compression methods