Hello Robert, 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> > wrote: >> [ latest patches ] > > Committed. Thanks for the review.
Cool :) 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. + */ s/counterpary/counterparty/; 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(). We + * only need a read barrier here because the increment of mq_bytes_read is + * actually a read followed by a dependent write. + */ (" Pairs ..." vs. ". We only ...") Best regards, Tels