I wrote:
> This is not actually going to work nicely in cases such as the number of
> parallel tests being limited by max_connections.
Er, no, I take that back: I was thinking that the status() function
included checking of the output file, but it only prints the test name.
Still, I'm not convinced this is an improvement. The current behavior
gives some feedback about how the set of parallel tests is progressing,
while what you suggest would typically just print all the test names
right away and then sit there for a long time.
regards, tom lane