Re: [PATCH] Renumber confusing value for GUC_UNIT_BYTE - Mailing list pgsql-committers

From Justin Pryzby
Subject Re: [PATCH] Renumber confusing value for GUC_UNIT_BYTE
Date
Msg-id 20220907091749.GY31833@telsasoft.com
Whole thread Raw
List pgsql-committers
On Wed, Sep 07, 2022 at 11:11:37AM +0200, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 06.09.22 08:27, Michael Paquier wrote:
> > On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 01:57:53AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> > > Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.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.
> > 
> > +1.
> 
> committed without the comment change

Thank you



pgsql-committers by date:

Previous
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: pgsql: Renumber confusing value for GUC_UNIT_BYTE
Next
From: David Rowley
Date:
Subject: pgsql: Make MemoryContextContains work correctly again