Postgres Pro
Downloads
Home   >   mailing lists

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

From Tom Lane
Subject Re: [PATCH] Renumber confusing value for GUC_UNIT_BYTE
Date
Msg-id 3052113.1662443873@sss.pgh.pa.us
Whole thread Raw
In response to Re: [PATCH] Renumber confusing value for GUC_UNIT_BYTE  (Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@enterprisedb.com>)
Responses Re: [PATCH] Renumber confusing value for GUC_UNIT_BYTE
List pgsql-hackers
Tree view 
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.

            regards, tom lane

pgsql-hackers by date:

Previous
From: Kyotaro Horiguchi
Date:
Subject: Re: more descriptive message for process termination due to max_slot_wal_keep_size
Next
From: Peter Eisentraut
Date:
Subject: Re: pg_waldump: add test for coverage