Обсуждение: GiST README typos

Hi Hackers,

Here are fixes to a few typos I found in the GiST README.

Yours,

-- 
Paul              ~{:-)
pj@illuminatedcomputing.com

On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 1:19 PM Paul A Jungwirth
<pj@illuminatedcomputing.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

On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 7:00 PM John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.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@illuminatedcomputing.com

On Thu, Nov 6, 2025 at 1:36 PM Paul A Jungwirth
<pj@illuminatedcomputing.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, Nov 5, 2025 at 7:00 PM John Naylor <johncnaylorls@gmail.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".

Pushed that way, thanks!

--
John Naylor
Amazon Web Services