Re: [PATCH] Renumber confusing value for GUC_UNIT_BYTE

Peter Eisentraut <peter.eisentraut@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