Instructions for FreeBSD ipc config showing age
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?
BTW I suspect that both Open and NetBSD are in need of an update too,
however I don't have any installations of such to experiment on.
regards
Mark
Attachments:
runtime.sgml.difftext/plain; name=runtime.sgml.diffDownload+52-13
Mark Kirkwood <markir@coretech.co.nz> 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:
+ <para> + Versions before 4.0 will require a kernel rebuild, see the + <systemitem class="osname">NetBSD</> and <systemitem + class="osname">OpenBSD</> instructions above, however the key word is + <literal>options</literal> (plural) in this case. </para>
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
Tom Lane wrote:
This seems a bit awkwardly phrased:
+ <para> + Versions before 4.0 will require a kernel rebuild, see the + <systemitem class="osname">NetBSD</> and <systemitem + class="osname">OpenBSD</> instructions above, however the key word is + <literal>options</literal> (plural) in this case. </para>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".
Yeah - much nicer.
Also, alphabetization would suggest putting the FreeBSD entry before the
other two, not after, so maybe that should be "see below".
Thanks - had not considered that!
Amended patch attached.
regards
Mark