Received: from malur.postgresql.org ([217.196.149.56]) by arkaria.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gugIN-0008PX-Mt for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:24:59 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=malur.postgresql.org) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtp (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gugIM-0005kk-CD for pgsql-hackers@arkaria.postgresql.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:24:58 +0000 Received: from magus.postgresql.org ([2a02:c0:301:0:ffff::29]) by malur.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gugIM-0005kd-54 for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:24:58 +0000 Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us ([66.207.139.130]) by magus.postgresql.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:256) (Exim 4.89) (envelope-from ) id 1gugIK-0007eF-4x for pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 16:24:57 +0000 Received: from sss1.sss.pgh.pa.us (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id x1FGOroE004669; Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:24:53 -0500 From: Tom Lane To: John Naylor cc: Peter Eisentraut , Daniel Gustafsson , pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org Subject: Re: Reporting script runtimes in pg_regress In-reply-to: References: <16646.1549770618@sss.pgh.pa.us> <11413.1549835730@sss.pgh.pa.us> <6f1657f9-c58c-ba28-0013-d36a6f6fd246@2ndquadrant.com> <6418.1549895430@sss.pgh.pa.us> <422e0383-79e1-7c10-5771-1e232e3349ca@2ndquadrant.com> Comments: In-reply-to John Naylor message dated "Fri, 15 Feb 2019 17:03:13 +0100" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-ID: <4667.1550247893.1@sss.pgh.pa.us> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2019 11:24:53 -0500 Message-ID: <4668.1550247893@sss.pgh.pa.us> List-Id: List-Help: List-Subscribe: List-Post: List-Owner: List-Archive: Precedence: bulk John Naylor writes: > On 2/15/19, Peter Eisentraut wrote: >> We should also strive to align "FAILED" properly. This is currently >> quite unreadable: >> >> int4 ... ok (128 ms) >> int8 ... FAILED (153 ms) >> oid ... ok (163 ms) >> float4 ... ok (231 ms) > If I may play devil's advocate, who cares how long it takes a test to > fail? If it's not difficult, leaving the time out for failures would > make them stand out more. Actually, I'd supposed that that might be useful info, sometimes. For example it might help you guess whether a timeout had elapsed. regards, tom lane