X-Original-To: pgsql-docs-postgresql.org@localhost.postgresql.org Received: from localhost (unknown [200.46.204.144]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F51A8B9C50 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:34:34 +0000 (GMT) Received: from svr1.postgresql.org ([200.46.204.71]) by localhost (av.hub.org [200.46.204.144]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 66350-09 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:34:29 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7E87F8B9D14 for ; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 22:34:30 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss2.sss.pgh.pa.us (tgl@localhost [127.0.0.1]) by sss.pgh.pa.us (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id j0VMYSYq005044; Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:34:28 -0500 (EST) To: Mark Kirkwood Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Instructions for FreeBSD ipc config showing age In-reply-to: <41FEA967.8000906@coretech.co.nz> References: <41FEA967.8000906@coretech.co.nz> Comments: In-reply-to Mark Kirkwood message dated "Tue, 01 Feb 2005 10:55:51 +1300" Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 17:34:28 -0500 Message-ID: <5043.1107210868@sss.pgh.pa.us> From: Tom Lane X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new at hub.org X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.006 tagged_above=0 required=5 tests=AWL X-Spam-Level: X-Archive-Number: 200501/74 X-Sequence-Number: 2833 Mark Kirkwood writes: > A recent mailing on the -perf list highlighted that the docs concerning > ipc configuration are a bit out for date for FreeBSD. > The attached patch separates out FreeBSD from Open/NetBSD, and shows how > to change settings via sysctl w/o a kernel rebuild. Any thoughts? This seems a bit awkwardly phrased: > + > + Versions before 4.0 will require a kernel rebuild, see the > + NetBSD and + class="osname">OpenBSD instructions above, however the key word is > + options (plural) in this case. > Perhaps FreeBSD versions before 4.0 work like NetBSD and OpenBSD (see above), except that the configuration file uses the key word "options" instead of "option". Also, alphabetization would suggest putting the FreeBSD entry before the other two, not after, so maybe that should be "see below". regards, tom lane