Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentr...@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
