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 DD5848B9E39 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:18:29 +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 17154-02 for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:18:25 +0000 (GMT) Received: from sss.pgh.pa.us (sss.pgh.pa.us [66.207.139.130]) by svr1.postgresql.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7A4958B9E7B for ; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 23:18:27 +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 j13NIPIQ005981; Thu, 3 Feb 2005 18:18:25 -0500 (EST) To: Mark Kirkwood Cc: pgsql-docs@postgresql.org Subject: Re: Instructions for Linux ipc config In-reply-to: <4202AE60.6000706@coretech.co.nz> References: <4202AE60.6000706@coretech.co.nz> Comments: In-reply-to Mark Kirkwood message dated "Fri, 04 Feb 2005 12:06:08 +1300" Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2005 18:18:24 -0500 Message-ID: <5980.1107472704@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: 200502/12 X-Sequence-Number: 2845 Mark Kirkwood writes: > Glancing over these as I was doing the FreeBSD patch, I noticed some > scope for modernization there plus a possible error to correct: > i) we could standardize the change method to use sysctl instead of > echo'ing things into /proc/kernel/* structures (unless there is some > reason for this to be preferable?) How far back in Linux history does that work? It would be bad to remove instructions needed for versions that people are still using. But yeah, if we can standardize on describing sysctl that's probably a good thing, since it applies to more than one platform. > ii) we are recommending setting kernel.shmall equal to kernel.shmmax. I > think this is incorrect or strange anyway : It does make sense for shmall-in-bytes to exceed shmmax-in-bytes, but probably not by a factor of 4000 ... regards, tom lane