On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:10 AM, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us> wrote:
> Robert Haas <robertmhaas@gmail.com> writes:
>> On Tue, Jul 6, 2010 at 11:03 AM, Bruce Momjian <bruce@momjian.us> wrote:
>>> Anything backpatched risks causing instability, and might discourage
>>> people from performing minor upgrades. Minor fixes are rarely worth the
>>> risk of causing instability in back-branches.
>
>> OK. Well, in that case, I think we should backpatch the changes Simon
>> already made, and also pick a new unit for the GUC.
>
> Changing the unit setting would also be a behavioral change. I think
> what Bruce is suggesting is that this is simply not worth worrying about
> in the back branches.
It seems pretty strange not to at least document it. And I'm not wild
about adding documentation that says "Even though this value purports
to be in kilobytes, it's really not", but I guess we can.
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The Enterprise Postgres Company