On 06.09.22 08:27, Michael Paquier wrote:
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 01:57:53AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut 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 ju
On Tue, Sep 06, 2022 at 01:57:53AM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Peter Eisentraut 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 precede
Peter Eisentraut 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 sequen
On 20.07.22 16:52, Justin Pryzby wrote:
+/* GUC_UNIT_* are not flags - they're tested for equality */
Well, there is GUC_UNIT_MEMORY, etc. so there is an additional
constraint beyond just "pick any number". I'm not sure that "flag" and
"tested for equality" are really antonyms anyway.
I th
The GUC units are currently defined like:
#define GUC_UNIT_KB 0x1000 /* value is in
kilobytes */
#define GUC_UNIT_BLOCKS 0x2000 /* value is in blocks */
#define GUC_UNIT_XBLOCKS0x3000 /* value is in xlog blocks */
#define GUC_UNIT_MB
