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
