Andres Freund <and...@anarazel.de> writes:
> These separate shm_mq instances forward messages in a circle,
> "leader"->worker_1->worker_2->...->"leader". So there isn't a single contended
> spinlock, but a bunch of different spinlocks, each with at most two backends
> accessing it?
No; there's just one spinlock. I'm re-purposing the spinlock that
test_shm_mq uses to protect its setup operations (and thereafter
ignores). AFAICS the N+1 shm_mq instances don't internally contain
spinlocks; they all use atomic ops.
(Well, on crappy architectures maybe there's spinlocks underneath
the atomic ops, but I don't think we care about such cases here.)
regards, tom lane
