On Thu, Feb 6, 2020 at 1:52 PM Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> wrote: > I admit it's awkward. I think we possibly could still just make the size > displayed in bytes in either case, reducing that issue a *bit*?
That seems like it makes it even more confusing, honestly. > > It'd sort of be nicer to have two separate GUCs, > > one measured as a multiple and the other measured in bytes, but maybe > > that's just exchanging one form of confusion for another. > > We don't really have a good way to deal with GUCs where setting one > precludes the other, especially when those GUCs should be changable at > runtime :(. It can work if one of the GUCs is king, and the other one takes effect only the first one is set to some value that means "ignore me". We have a number of examples of that, e.g. autovacuum_work_mem, autovacuum_vacuum_cost_limit. -- Robert Haas EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
