On Fri, 2020-07-10 at 13:46 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> I looked over Peter's patch in [1], and it seems generally pretty
> sane to me, though I concur with the idea that it'd be better to
> define the GUC as a multiplier for work_mem. (For one thing, we
> could
> then easily limit it to be at least 1.0, ensuring sanity; also, if
> work_mem does eventually become more dynamic than it is now, we might
> still be able to salvage this knob as something useful. Or if not,
> we just rip it out.) So my vote is for moving in that direction.
In that case, I will hold off on my "escape-hatch" GUC.
Regards,
Jeff Davis
