Re: GiST README typos

From: John Naylor <johncnaylorls(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: Paul A Jungwirth <pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com>
Cc: PostgreSQL Hackers <pgsql-hackers(at)lists(dot)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: GiST README typos
Date: 2025-11-06 02:59:50
Message-ID: CANWCAZbq_Sz6n9Fpcd+DAbfn-BGkJ31XipNXuObSuLGYRYoKJA@mail.gmail.com
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 1:19 PM Paul A Jungwirth
<pj(at)illuminatedcomputing(dot)com> wrote:
> Here are fixes to a few typos I found in the GiST README.

the child might have migrated as a result of concurrent splits of the
-parent, gistFindCorrectParent() is used to find the parent page.
+parent, so gistFindCorrectParent() is used to find the parent page.

-buffer attached to them. When a tuple is inserted at the top, the descend down
+buffer attached to them. When a tuple is inserted at the top, the descent down

LGTM

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.

--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message David Rowley 2025-11-06 03:35:43 Re: Teaching planner to short-circuit empty UNION/EXCEPT/INTERSECT inputs
Previous Message jian he 2025-11-06 02:45:58 Re: Docs and tests for RLS policies applied by command type