Re: GiST README typos

On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 7:00 PM John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
>
> being empty. Whenever we find one, we acquire a lock on the parent and child
> -page, re-check that the child page is still empty. Then, we remove the
> +page, then re-check that the child page is still empty. Then, we remove the
> downlink and mark the child as deleted, and release the locks.
>
> I still find this a bit awkward -- perhaps "and re-check"? The last
> sentence could do with just the last "and" as well, I think, but
> that's a style consideration and not a grammar fix.

I nearly wrote it that way myself. It's nice that it avoids the double
"then". So I agree, let's go with "and re-check".

Thanks for the review!

Yours,

--
Paul ~{:-)
pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com