On 2022-01-06 22:23:38 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> 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).
Oh, sorry, misread :(
> AFAICS the N+1 shm_mq instances don't internally contain
> spinlocks; they all use atomic ops.
They contain spinlocks too, and the naming is similar enough that I got
confused:
struct shm_mq
{
slock_t mq_mutex;
We don't use them for all that much anymore though...
Greetings,
Andres Freund
