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.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.+1.
committed without the comment change
