Re: Reporting script runtimes in pg_regress

From: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>
To: Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com>
Cc: Daniel Gustafsson <daniel(at)yesql(dot)se>, pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: Reporting script runtimes in pg_regress
Date: 2019-02-15 14:54:44
Message-ID: 475.1550242484@sss.pgh.pa.us
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> On 2019-02-15 14:32, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> test event_trigger ... ok 128 ms
>> test fast_default ... ok 173 ms
>> test stats ... ok 637 ms

That looks reasonable, although on machines where test runtimes run
into the tens of seconds, there's not going to be nearly as much
whitespace as this example suggests.

> We should also strive to align "FAILED" properly.

Hmm. The reasonable ways to accomplish that look to be either
(a) pad "ok" to the width of "FAILED", or (b) rely on emitting a tab.
I don't much like either, especially from the localization angle.
One should also note that FAILED often comes along with additional
verbiage, such as "(ignored)" or a note about process exit status;
so I think making such cases line up totally neatly is a lost cause
anyway.

How do you feel about letting it do this:

int4 ... ok 128 ms
int8 ... FAILED 153 ms
oid ... ok 163 ms
float4 ... ok 231 ms

regards, tom lane

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Justin Pryzby 2019-02-15 14:57:04 Re: query logging of prepared statements
Previous Message Alvaro Herrera 2019-02-15 14:54:25 Re: Using POPCNT and other advanced bit manipulation instructions