Hi, hackers.
Attached are 2 tiny doc typo fixes.
Jon
From ed4e539d5eade0a3e20d42e35239141f14a3b24b Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Jon Jensen <j...@endpoint.com>
Date: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 17:45:30 -0700
Subject: [PATCH] Fix doc typos
---
doc/src/sgml/parallel.sgml | 4 ++--
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/doc/src/sgml/parallel.sgml b/doc/src/sgml/parallel.sgml
index af5d48a5c7..95306287e2 100644
--- a/doc/src/sgml/parallel.sgml
+++ b/doc/src/sgml/parallel.sgml
@@ -277,7 +277,7 @@ EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts WHERE filler LIKE
'%x%';
scan</emphasis>, the cooperating processes take turns reading data
from the
index. Currently, parallel index scans are supported only for
btree indexes. Each process will claim a single index block and will
- scan and return all tuples referenced by that block; other process can
+ scan and return all tuples referenced by that block; other processes
can
at the same time be returning tuples from a different index block.
The results of a parallel btree scan are returned in sorted order
within each worker process.
@@ -410,7 +410,7 @@ EXPLAIN SELECT * FROM pgbench_accounts WHERE filler LIKE
'%x%';
involve appending multiple results sets can therefore achieve
coarse-grained parallelism even when efficient partial plans are not
available. For example, consider a query against a partitioned table
- which can be only be implemented efficiently by using an index that does
+ which can only be implemented efficiently by using an index that does
not support parallel scans. The planner might choose a <literal>Parallel
Append</literal> of regular <literal>Index Scan</literal> plans; each
individual index scan would have to be executed to completion by a single
--
2.24.1
