| 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
| 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 |