From bc0021ef09ec709fa20309228ea30ccf07f8b4e6 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Bruce Momjian Date: Thu, 29 Mar 2018 12:18:34 -0400 Subject: [PATCH] C comment: fix wording about shared memory message queue Reported-by: Tels Discussion: https://postgr.es/m/e66e05bc55f5ce904e361ad17a3395ae.squirrel@sm.webmail.pair.com --- src/backend/storage/ipc/shm_mq.c | 8 ++++---- 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) diff --git a/src/backend/storage/ipc/shm_mq.c b/src/backend/storage/ipc/shm_mq.c index 3faace249f..c80cb6e2f7 100644 --- 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(); -- 2.40.0