I wrote:
> So for clarity's sake: first suitable format among these:
> Time: 59.999 ms
> Time: 121.999 ms (2:01.999)
> Time: 10921.999 ms (3:02:01.999)
> Time: 356521.999 ms (4 3:02:01.999)
Sorry, that probably added no clarity at all, I was confusing
seconds with milliseconds in the example values :-(
regards, tom lane