C comment: fix wording about shared memory message queue

Reported-by: Tels
Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/e66e05bc55f5ce904e361ad17a3395ae.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com

diff --git a/src/backend/storage/ipc/shm_mq.c b/src/backend/storage/ipc/shm_mq.c
index 3faace249ff0b98d6cd0792cede824b0289192a9..c80cb6e2f70136ef17cda7428e99ef65480ce359 100644 (file)
--- a/src/backend/storage/ipc/shm_mq.c
+++ b/src/backend/storage/ipc/shm_mq.c
@@ -493,7 +493,7 @@ shm_mq_sendv(shm_mq_handle *mqh, shm_mq_iovec *iov, int iovcnt, bool nowait)
                return SHM_MQ_DETACHED;
 
        /*
-        * If the counterpary is known to have attached, we can read mq_receiver
+        * If the counterparty 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.
         */
@@ -1203,9 +1203,9 @@ shm_mq_inc_bytes_read(shm_mq *mq, Size n)
 
        /*
         * 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.
+        * which follows.  This 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.
         */
        pg_read_barrier();