On Mon, Nov 30, 2020 at 03:46:19PM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
> Michael Paquier <michael@paquier.xyz> writes:
> > So this comes down to 5 items, as per the attached. Thoughts?
>
> These items look fine to me, except this bit seems a bit awkward:
>
> + Note that the delayed indexing technique used for <acronym>GIN</acronym>
> + (see <xref linkend="gin-fast-update"/> for details) makes this advice
> + less necessary, but for very large updates it may still be best to
> + drop and recreate the index.
>
> Less necessary than what? Maybe instead write
>
> When fastupdate is enabled (see ...), the penalty is much less than
> when it is not. But for very large updates it may still be best to
> drop and recreate the index.
Thanks, that's indeed better. I used your wording, looked at that
again, and applied that.
--
Michael
