| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: Adjust pg_regress output for new long test names |
| Date: | 2021-06-09 02:44:27 |
| Message-ID: | 1262089.1623206667@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Thomas Munro <thomas(dot)munro(at)gmail(dot)com> writes:
> test detach-partition-concurrently-1 ... ok 553 ms
> test detach-partition-concurrently-2 ... ok 234 ms
> test detach-partition-concurrently-3 ... ok 2389 ms
> test detach-partition-concurrently-4 ... ok 1876 ms
> Any objections to making these new tests line up with the rest?
... 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.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2021-06-09 02:47:21 | Re: Duplicate history file? |
| Previous Message | Michael Paquier | 2021-06-09 02:42:09 | Re: pg14b1 stuck in lazy_scan_prune/heap_page_prune of pg_statistic |