Date: Mon, 13 Apr 2020 03:30:15 -0500
From: Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com>
To: Amit Kapila <amit.kapila16@gmail.com>
Cc: Masahiko Sawada <masahiko.sawada@2ndquadrant.com>,
	Mahendra Singh Thalor <mahi6run@gmail.com>,
	Dilip Kumar <dilipbalaut@gmail.com>, Sergei Kornilov <sk@zsrv.org>,
	pgsql-hackers <pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org>
Subject: Re: doc review for parallel vacuum
Message-ID: <20200413083015.GQ2228@telsasoft.com>
References: <20200322021801.GB2563@telsasoft.com>
 <CAA4eK1Jwqq2=pukH212AvyWv6_oOJxM2YAypOEzR1KgeJj8_BQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1+V5QovVH49=9RhsrshoNAA+TZBVGrv30xAqG0ncPUQaQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200407045551.GI2228@telsasoft.com>
 <CA+fd4k74vmiU=KdEjLJU4UQ99UvLn0mp-CKTkiF=bUdyk2PUNA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAA4eK1JwUXkV4T2uAiLDYHT3efqkX2gE+Z5Z8g-DgCw377LN_g@mail.gmail.com>
 <20200410134644.GB2228@telsasoft.com>
 <CAA4eK1JoYKBcAJ5sgvbwGFwyu1Jr6faQqa8nn8tQuuewmpXs-Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: 
 <CAA4eK1JoYKBcAJ5sgvbwGFwyu1Jr6faQqa8nn8tQuuewmpXs-Q@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.9.4 (2018-02-28)
Precedence: bulk

On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 10:44:42AM +0530, Amit Kapila wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 10, 2020 at 7:16 PM Justin Pryzby <pryzby@telsasoft.com> wrote:
> >
> > Also, this part still doesn't read well:
> >
> > -        * amvacuumcleanup to the DSM segment if it's the first time to get it?
> > -        * from them? because they? allocate it locally and it's possible that an
> > -        * index will be vacuumed by the different vacuum process at the next
> >
> > If you change "it" and "them" and "it" and say "*a* different", then it'll be
> > ok.
> >
> 
> I am not sure if I follow how exactly you want to change it but still
> let me know what you think about if we change it like: "Copy the index
> bulk-deletion result returned from ambulkdelete and amvacuumcleanup to
> the DSM segment if it's the first time because they allocate locally
> and it's possible that an index will be vacuumed by the different
> vacuum process at the next time."

I changed "the" to "a" and removed "at":

|Copy the index
|bulk-deletion result returned from ambulkdelete and amvacuumcleanup to
|the DSM segment if it's the first time [???] because they allocate locally
|and it's possible that an index will be vacuumed by a different
|vacuum process the next time."

Is it correct to say: "..if it's the first iteration" and "different process on
the next iteration" ?  Or "cycle" ?

-- 
Justin