Hannu Krosing <han...@google.com> writes: > On Mon, Jul 7, 2025 at 11:38 PM Tom Lane <t...@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote: >> What do you think of instead specifying the limit as the maximum >> running-percentage to print, with a default of say 99.99%? That >> gives me results like
> I agree that percentage covered is a much better metric indeed.
> And I am equally ok with a default of either 99.9% or 99.99%.
OK, pushed after a bit more fooling with the documentation.
regards, tom lane
