| From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
|---|---|
| To: | Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Justin Pryzby <pryzby(at)telsasoft(dot)com>, Beena Emerson <memissemerson(at)gmail(dot)com>, Andres Freund <andres(at)anarazel(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
| Subject: | Re: [PATCH] Renumber confusing value for GUC_UNIT_BYTE |
| Date: | 2022-09-06 05:57:53 |
| Message-ID: | 3052113.1662443873@sss.pgh.pa.us |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-committers pgsql-hackers |
Peter Eisentraut <peter(dot)eisentraut(at)enterprisedb(dot)com> writes:
> I think renumbering this makes sense. We could just leave the comment
> as is if we don't come up with a better wording.
+1, I see no need to change the comment. We just need to establish
the precedent that values within the GUC_UNIT_MEMORY field can be
chosen sequentially.
regards, tom lane
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Michael Paquier | 2022-09-06 06:27:58 | Re: [PATCH] Renumber confusing value for GUC_UNIT_BYTE |
| Previous Message | John Naylor | 2022-09-06 05:50:59 | pgsql: Fix headerscheck in vpath builds |
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Peter Eisentraut | 2022-09-06 05:57:57 | Re: pg_waldump: add test for coverage |
| Previous Message | Kyotaro Horiguchi | 2022-09-06 05:53:36 | Re: more descriptive message for process termination due to max_slot_wal_keep_size |