On Fri, March 2, 2018 12:22 pm, Robert Haas wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2018 at 10:06 AM, Robert Haas <robertmh...@gmail.com>
>> [ latest patches ]
> Committed. Thanks for the review.
There is a typo, tho:
+ * If the counterpary is known to have attached, we can read mq_receiver
+ * without acquiring the spinlock and assume it isn't NULL. Otherwise,
+ * more caution is needed.
Sorry, only noticed while re-reading the thread.
Also, either a double space is missing, or one is too many:
+ * Separate prior reads of mq_ring from the increment of mq_bytes_read
+ * which follows. Pairs with the full barrier in shm_mq_send_bytes().
+ * only need a read barrier here because the increment of mq_bytes_read
+ * actually a read followed by a dependent write.
(" Pairs ..." vs. ". We only ...")