I wrote: > Attached is an updated patch that does it like that. Sample output > (generated by forcing specific arguments to PrintTiming):
> Time: 0.100 ms > Time: 1.200 ms > Time: 1001.200 ms (00:01.001) > Time: 12001.200 ms (00:12.001) > Time: 60001.200 ms (01:00.001) > Time: 720001.200 ms (12:00.001) > Time: 3660001.200 ms (01:01:00.001) > Time: 43920001.200 ms (12:12:00.001) > Time: 176460001.200 ms (2 01:01:00.001) > Time: 216720001.200 ms (2 12:12:00.001) > Time: 8816460001.200 ms (102 01:01:00.001) > Time: 8856720001.200 ms (102 12:12:00.001) After further thought I concluded that not providing any labeling of days is a bad idea. The hours, minutes, and seconds fields seem reasonably self-explanatory given the formatting, but days not so much. (I'm not sure whether that is the whole of Peter van H's objection, but surely it's part of it.) I pushed the patch using this: Time: 176460001.200 ms (2 d 01:01:00.001) and all else as before. regards, tom lane -- Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org) To make changes to your subscription: http://www.postgresql.org/mailpref/pgsql-hackers