Re: Adjust pg_regress output for new long test names - Mailing list pgsql-hackers

From Thomas Munro
Subject Re: Adjust pg_regress output for new long test names
Date
Msg-id CA+hUKGKggWp8gEu=9MPJ=DKJOz5x=dn+6cgR5yBRmvcaFp65aA@mail.gmail.com
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: Adjust pg_regress output for new long test names  (Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>)
Responses Re: Adjust pg_regress output for new long test names
List pgsql-hackers
[Responding to two emails in one]

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 2:44 PM Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> ... or we could shorten those file names.  I recall an episode
> awhile ago where somebody complained that their version of "tar"
> couldn't handle some of the path names in our tarball, so
> keeping things from getting to carpal-tunnel-inducing lengths
> does have its advantages.

On Wed, Jun 9, 2021 at 2:51 PM Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com> wrote:
> Not bad, but I would instead shorten the names to detach-[1234] or
> detach-partition-[1234].  The marginal value of the second word is low, and
> the third word helps even less.

Alright, CC'ing Alvaro who added the long names to see if he wants to
consider that.

There's one other case of this phenomenon:
tuplelock-upgrade-no-deadlock overflows by one character.



pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Amit Kapila
Date:
Subject: Re: locking [user] catalog tables vs 2pc vs logical rep
Next
From: Michael Paquier
Date:
Subject: Re: Move pg_attribute.attcompression to earlier in struct for reduced size?