On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:08 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 16 June 2013 17:25, Samrat Revagade revagade.sam...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
So I strongly object to calling this patch anything to do
Thank you for giving comments and my patch reviewer!
(2013/06/16 23:27), Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 10.06.2013 13:51, KONDO Mitsumasa wrote:
I create patch which is improvement of checkpoint IO scheduler for
stable transaction responses.
* Problem in checkpoint IO schedule in heavy
On 17 June 2013 00:43, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Especially when one is known to be better than the other already.
What is the hypothetical technique you're arguing is inferior? For
my own part, I haven't gotten beyond the phase of knowing that to
meet all requests for the
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 2:18 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 2013-06-16 17:27:56 +0300, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
A long time ago, Itagaki wrote a patch to sort the checkpoint writes:
www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/20070614153758.6a62.itagaki.takah...@oss.ntt.co.jp
.
(2013/06/17 5:48), Andres Freund wrote: On 2013-06-16 17:27:56 +0300, Heikki
Linnakangas wrote:
If we don't mind scanning the buffer cache several times, we don't
necessarily even need to sort the writes for that. Just scan the buffer
cache for all buffers belonging to relation A, then fsync
On 17 June 2013 02:05, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
I agree that the FSM behaviour shouldn't be linked to index existence.
IMHO that should be a separate table parameter, WITH (fsm_mode = append)
Index only scans would also benefit from that.
-1 ... I cannot believe that such a
Hey
I was reading the multi transaction log manager, multixact.c.
I didn't get what SLRU does.
I want the goal of this module, and why we use it.
I'm kind of newbie, be patient with me ;)
Regards
Soroosh
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 5:10 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
My perspective is that if the master crashed, assuming that you know
everything about that and suddenly jumping back on seem like a recipe
for disaster. Attempting that is currently blocked by the technical
obstacles
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 1:22 PM, Soroosh Sardari
soroosh.sard...@gmail.comwrote:
Hey
I was reading the multi transaction log manager, multixact.c.
I didn't get what SLRU does.
I want the goal of this module, and why we use it.
I'm kind of newbie, be patient with me ;)
Did you look at
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
I suspect that there are actually only about 5 or 6 common ways to do
archiving (say, local, NFS, scp, rsync, S3, ...). There's no reason why
we can't fully specify and/or script what to do in each of these cases.
And provide either fully reliable
Hi,
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
2. confuse users
3. produce broken external extension modules that take contrib as an example
I agree that having both cases (sections) in the Makefile is a bad idea.
Still, why should we keep the in-tree build instructions?
Would it be possible
On 23 May 2013 00:34, Robins Tharakan thara...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Please find attached a patch to take code-coverage of CREATE OPERATOR
(src/backend/commands/operatorcmds.c) from 56% to 91%.
Any and all feedback is welcome.
--
Robins Tharakan
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 15 June 2013 10:22, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
There seem to be 2 separate directions that this could go, which
really meet different requirements:
1). Produce an unordered sum for SQL to compare 2 tables regardless of
the order in which they are scanned. A possible
On 14.06.2013 19:05, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Attached is a patch for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY for
9.4 CF1. The goal of this patch is to allow a refresh without
interfering with concurrent reads, using transactional semantics.
It is my hope to get this committed during this CF to
This is a review of the patch in 5192d7d2.8020...@catalyst.net.nz
The patch applies cleanly (with the exception of catversion.h of course),
compiles without warnings and passes the regression tests.
It contains enough documentation, though I'd prefer
Estimated number of rows modified since the
On 17 June 2013 09:03, Pavan Deolasee pavan.deola...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree. We should probably find a better name for this. Any suggestions ?
err, I already made one...
But that's not the whole story. I can see some utility in a patch that
makes all WAL transfer synchronous, rather than
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:34:52AM +0100, Dean Rasheed wrote:
On 15 June 2013 10:22, Dean Rasheed dean.a.rash...@gmail.com wrote:
There seem to be 2 separate directions that this could go, which
really meet different requirements:
1). Produce an unordered sum for SQL to compare 2 tables
On 26 May 2013 19:56, Robins Tharakan thara...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Please find attached a patch to take code-coverage of SET (SESSION / SEED
/ TRANSACTION / DATESTYLE / TIME ZONE) (src/backend/commands/variable.c)
from 65% to 82%.
Any and all feedback is welcome.
--
Robins Tharakan
On 2013-06-03 14:57:12 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 1:39 AM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
+1.
Here's a more serious patch for MVCC catalog access. This one
involves more data copying than the last one, I think, because the
previous version did not
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
There are multiple features all requiring efficient change set
extraction. It seems extremely relevant to begin discussing what
that mechanism might be in each case
Changeset extraction has nothing to do with this patch, and cannot
possibly be useful
On 17 June 2013 12:13, Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 14.06.2013 19:05, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Attached is a patch for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY for
9.4 CF1. The goal of this patch is to allow a refresh without
interfering with concurrent reads, using
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.comwrote:
On 2013-06-17 04:20:03 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi all,
Please find attached the latest versions of REINDEX CONCURRENTLY for
* David Fetter (da...@fetter.org) wrote:
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 10:48:38AM -0800, David Fetter wrote:
On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 10:09:19AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
David Fetter da...@fetter.org writes:
Per suggestions and lots of help from Andrew Gierth, please find
attached a patch to
On Mon, May 13, 2013 at 2:58 AM, Robins Tharakan thara...@gmail.com wrote:
Please find attached a patch that adds basic regression tests for DISCARD
command.
Any and all feedback is obviously welcome.
Perhaps existing tests in guc.sql should be merged into it?
--
marko
--
Sent via
On Fri, Mar 8, 2013 at 11:58 AM, Pavel Stehule pavel.steh...@gmail.com wrote:
I'll see - please, stay tuned to 9.4 first commitfest
Hi Pavel,
Just a reminder, I didn't see this patch in the current commitfest. I
would be happy to spend some more time reviewing if you wish to pursue
the patch.
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 12:09 AM, Alexander Korotkov
aekorot...@gmail.comwrote:
Revised version of patch for additional information storage in GIN is
attached. Changes are mostly bug fixes.
New version of patch is attached with some more refactoring and bug fixes.
--
With best regards,
On 17 June 2013 13:15, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
There are multiple features all requiring efficient change set
extraction. It seems extremely relevant to begin discussing what
that mechanism might be in each case
Changeset extraction
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.comwrote:
attached patch implementing fast scan technique for GIN. This is second
patch of GIN improvements, see the 1st one here:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.comwrote:
attached patch implementing ordering inside GIN index. This is third patch
of GIN improvements, see previous two:
Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com wrote:
On 14.06.2013 19:05, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Attached is a patch for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY
for 9.4 CF1. The goal of this patch is to allow a refresh
without interfering with concurrent reads, using transactional
semantics.
It
On 17.06.2013 15:55, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 2:55 AM, Alexander Korotkovaekorot...@gmail.comwrote:
attached patch implementing fast scan technique for GIN. This is second
patch of GIN improvements, see the 1st one here:
On 9 June 2013 12:58, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 06/09/2013 04:58 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
There are also difficulties in semantics, since when
we have OLD and NEW at row level we know we are discussing the same
row. With sets of OLD and NEW we'd need to be able to link the
On 6/17/13 8:23 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
As mentionned by Andres, the only thing that the MVCC catalog patch can
improve here
is the index swap phase (index_concurrent_swap:index.c) where the
relfilenode of the
old and new indexes are exchanged. Now an AccessExclusiveLock is taken
on the 2
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Changeset extraction has nothing to do with this patch, and
cannot possibly be useful for it. Please keep discussion which
is completely unrelated to this patch off this thread.
You mentioned incremental
On 2013-06-17 09:12:12 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 6/17/13 8:23 AM, Michael Paquier wrote:
As mentionned by Andres, the only thing that the MVCC catalog patch can
improve here
is the index swap phase (index_concurrent_swap:index.c) where the
relfilenode of the
old and new indexes
2013/6/17 Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com:
+errmsg(concurrent refresh requires a
unique index on just columns for all rows of the materialized view)));
Maybe my english is failing me here, but I don’t understand the “just” part.
Nicolas
--
A.
Hi,
When postgres on linux receives connection on a high rate client
connections sometimes error out with:
could not send data to server: Transport endpoint is not connected
could not send startup packet: Transport endpoint is not connected
To reproduce start something like on a server with
Since there seems to be interest in discussing incremental
maintenance of materialized views *now*, I'm starting this thread
to try to avoid polluting unrelated threads with the discussion. I
don't intend to spend a lot of time on it until the CF in progress
completes, but at that point the work
On 6/17/13 9:19 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Without getting rid of the AccessExclusiveLock, REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is
not really concurrent, at least not concurrent to the standard set by
CREATE and DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
Well, it still does the main body of work in a concurrent fashion, so I
On 2013-06-17 11:03:35 -0400, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 6/17/13 9:19 AM, Andres Freund wrote:
Without getting rid of the AccessExclusiveLock, REINDEX CONCURRENTLY is
not really concurrent, at least not concurrent to the standard set by
CREATE and DROP INDEX CONCURRENTLY.
Well, it
On 2013-06-17 16:41 +02:00, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Since there seems to be interest in discussing incremental
maintenance of materialized views *now*, I'm starting this thread
to try to avoid polluting unrelated threads with the discussion. I
don't intend to spend a lot of time on it until the
Nicolas Barbier nicolas.barb...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/6/17 Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com:
+ errmsg(concurrent refresh requires a
unique index on just columns for all rows of the materialized view)));
Maybe my english is failing me here, but I
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Nicholas White escribió:
For the parsing changes, it seems I can either make RESPECT and IGNORE
reserved keywords, or add a lookahead to construct synthetic RESPECT NULLS
and IGNORE NULLS keywords. The grammar
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Nicolas Barbier nicolas.barb...@gmail.com wrote:
2013/6/17 Heikki Linnakangas hlinnakan...@vmware.com:
+errmsg(concurrent refresh requires a
unique index on just columns for all rows of
On Jun 16, 2013, at 9:20 AM, Cédric Villemain ced...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Then instead of the above you'd just be able to say something like
MODULETEST = test
or REGRESSDIR ?
Yeah, that sounds perfect.
Also I suggest to remove the need to set REGRESS at all, and default to all
Joe Conway wrote:
On 06/15/2013 11:28 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
This use case seems too narrow to me to justify the burden of
keeping PGXS-enabled makefiles in contrib.
What was the burden of it?
Per
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/1371093408.309.5.ca...@vanquo.pezone.net :
: 1.
On 17 June 2013 15:41, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
Since there seems to be interest in discussing incremental
maintenance of materialized views *now*
Since your earlier complaint, I specificaly said I was happy to wait
to discuss that. Why have you raised this now?
--
Simon Riggs
Le lundi 17 juin 2013 18:41:32, Alvaro Herrera a écrit :
Joe Conway wrote:
On 06/15/2013 11:28 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
This use case seems too narrow to me to justify the burden of
keeping PGXS-enabled makefiles in contrib.
What was the burden of it?
Per
On 17 June 2013 15:41, Kevin Grittner kgri...@ymail.com wrote:
While I have yet to look in detail at the mechanism for capturing
the initial delta on the base tables, the two fairly obvious
candidates are to stuff the before and after images into a
tuplestore or temp table as base table
2013/6/17 Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com:
On 9 June 2013 12:58, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 06/09/2013 04:58 PM, Simon Riggs wrote:
There are also difficulties in semantics, since when
we have OLD and NEW at row level we know we are discussing the same
row. With sets of
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Jun 17, 2013 at 5:23 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com
wrote:
On 2013-06-17 04:20:03 +0900, Fujii Masao wrote:
On Thu, Jun 6, 2013 at 1:29 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com
On 17.06.2013 15:56, Alexander Korotkov wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 3:02 AM, Alexander Korotkovaekorot...@gmail.comwrote:
This patch introduces new interface method of GIN which takes same
arguments as consistent but returns float8.
float8 gin_ordering(bool check[], StrategyNumber n, Datum
Amit,
I am interested in assisting you for this CF.
Kindly let me know how can I add value for CommitFest management.
Thank you for the offer! However, you're currently signed up to review
several patches, and I'd rather have you doing that than sending out
reminder emails.
--
Josh Berkus
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 8:29 PM Sawada Masahiko wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 1:19 PM Sawada Masahiko wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at
So there isn't a fall down thing here. We expect the recently
loaded/updated data to be scanned and that's OK.
Having the minmax index updated greedily is just adding extra work for
fast diminishing returns. We can always add that later if really
needed, but I doubt it will be needed - in
On 06/17/2013 04:13 AM, Heikki Linnakangas wrote:
On 14.06.2013 19:05, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Attached is a patch for REFRESH MATERIALIZED VIEW CONCURRENTLY for
9.4 CF1. The goal of this patch is to allow a refresh without
interfering with concurrent reads, using transactional semantics.
It
Well, it can do lots stuff that DROP/CREATE CONCURRENTLY can't:
* reindex primary keys
* reindex keys referenced by foreign keys
* reindex exclusion constraints
* reindex toast tables
* do all that for a whole database
so I don't think that comparison is fair. Having it would have made
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 9 June 2013 12:58, Craig Ringer cr...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
We don't currently have OLD and NEW relations so we're free to
define how this works pretty freely.
I think the best way, if we did do this, would be to have a
number of different
On 2013-06-17 12:52:36 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Well, it can do lots stuff that DROP/CREATE CONCURRENTLY can't:
* reindex primary keys
* reindex keys referenced by foreign keys
* reindex exclusion constraints
* reindex toast tables
* do all that for a whole database
so I don't
Greg Stark wrote:
On Fri, Jun 14, 2013 at 11:28 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Re-summarization is relatively expensive, because the complete page range
has
to be scanned.
That doesn't sound too bad to me. It just means there's a downside to
having larger page
Josh Berkus wrote:
Value changes in columns that are part of a minmax index, and tuple
insertion
in summarized pages, would invalidate the stored min/max values. To support
this, each minmax index has a validity map; a range can only be considered
in a
scan if it hasn't been
On 2013-06-17 16:23:40 -0400, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Re-summarization is relatively expensive, because the complete page range
has
to be scanned.
Why? Why can't we just update the affected pages in the index?
The page range has to be scanned in order to find out the min/max
Tom Lane wrote:
We've talked a lot about index-organized tables in the past. How much
of the use case for this would be subsumed by a feature like that?
IOTs are not flexible enough. You can only have one index that you
index-organize the table on; and you can search only based on a prefix
This begins to sound like these indexes are only useful on append-only
tables. Not that there aren't plenty of those, but ...
But what?
... but the other comments further down in my email. Also, my
successive comments in other emails.
Why? Why can't we just update the affected pages
Andres Freund wrote:
PS: Josh, minor thing, but could you please not trim the CC list, at
least when I am on it?
Yes, it's annoying.
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Training Services
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list
On 06/17/2013 01:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
PS: Josh, minor thing, but could you please not trim the CC list, at
least when I am on it?
Yes, it's annoying.
I also get private comments from people who don't want me to cc them
when they are already on the list. I
On 2013-06-17 13:46:07 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
On 06/17/2013 01:40 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Andres Freund wrote:
PS: Josh, minor thing, but could you please not trim the CC list, at
least when I am on it?
Yes, it's annoying.
I also get private comments from people who don't
On 6/14/13 11:48 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
I wonder if that should be extended to install headers for hstore,
ltree, and while we're at it, intarray as well?
Sure, if someone wants to go through and check which headers are
independently usable, and do the necessarily cleanups with necessary.
Peter Eisentraut wrote:
A transform is an SQL object that supplies to functions for converting
between data types and procedural languages. For example, a transform
could arrange that hstore is converted to an appropriate hash or
dictionary object in PL/Perl or PL/Python.
Externally
Hi!
This sounds really interesting, so a few quick comments.
On 15.6.2013 00:28, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
In each index tuple (corresponding to one page range), we store: -
first block this tuple applies to - last block this tuple applies to
- for each indexed column: * min() value across all
On 06/18/2013 01:25 AM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
and also one called
UPDATED
which would have two row vars called OLD and NEW
so you would access it like e.g. IF UPDATED.OLD.id = 7
nice idea
+1
Much better naming than OLD_AND_NEW.
I'm not so sure about
OLD
NEW
INSERTED
DELETED
in that
On 06/18/2013 04:58 AM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On 6/14/13 11:48 PM, Craig Ringer wrote:
I wonder if that should be extended to install headers for hstore,
ltree, and while we're at it, intarray as well?
Sure, if someone wants to go through and check which headers are
independently usable,
Folks,
At this stage, all of the patches which where not already added into CF1
should be there. So look carefully and make sure *all* of your patches
are there.
Amusingly, it's not the new submitters who forgot to add their patch to
the CF, but rather experienced contributors, and even a
BTW, one of the ideas that popped up in the unConference session on
replication was why couldn't we use a background worker as a replication
agent?
The main reason pointed out was 'because that means you have to restart the
postmaster to add a replication agent.' (e.g. - like a Slony slon
Hackers,
I got a question on RRR which I thought should be addressed on this
list. Basically, the questioner asked me I have a day job, I can't
promise to review all of these patches in 5 days.
The answer is: only put your name down on patches which you *can* review
in the next 5 days. Don't
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 7:41 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Folks,
At this stage, all of the patches which where not already added into CF1
should be there. So look carefully and make sure *all* of your patches
are there.
Amusingly, it's not the new submitters who forgot to add
Just wondering, how many patches did you add? 8? I saw a total of 98
patches a couple of days ago, now up to 106.
Then it must be 8. That sounds a about right. Mind you, I immediately
marked 2 as already committed.
--
Josh Berkus
PostgreSQL Experts Inc.
http://pgexperts.com
--
Sent via
On Tue, Jun 18, 2013 at 9:00 AM, Josh Berkus j...@agliodbs.com wrote:
Just wondering, how many patches did you add? 8? I saw a total of 98
patches a couple of days ago, now up to 106.
Then it must be 8. That sounds a about right. Mind you, I immediately
marked 2 as already committed.
Just
Contributors,
While going through this mailing list looking for missing 9.4 patches, I
realized that we don't track backpatches (that is, fixes to prior
versions) at all anywhere. Where backpatches are submitted by
committers this isn't an issue, but we had a couple major ones (like the
Thanks !
PFA the updated patch. Also remove a trailing whitespace at the end of SQL
script.
--
Robins Tharakan
On 17 June 2013 17:29, Szymon Guz mabew...@gmail.com wrote:
On 26 May 2013 19:56, Robins Tharakan thara...@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Please find attached a patch to take
On Wed, 2013-06-12 at 16:31 -0300, Fabrízio de Royes Mello wrote:
Btw., I also want REPLACE BUT DO NOT CREATE.
Can you explain more about it?
Replace/alter the object if it already exists, but fail if it does not
exist.
The complete set of variants is:
- object does not exist:
-
On Fri, 2013-06-14 at 17:00 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
Alvaro's work on 9.3, we now have the ability to configure background
workers via shared_preload_libraries. But if you don't have the right
library loaded at startup time, and subsequently wish to add a
background worker while the server
On Mon, 2013-06-17 at 17:11 -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
Contributors,
While going through this mailing list looking for missing 9.4 patches, I
realized that we don't track backpatches (that is, fixes to prior
versions) at all anywhere. Where backpatches are submitted by
committers this isn't
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 11:54 AM, Jeff Janes
jeff.ja...@gmail.comjavascript:_e({}, 'cvml',
'jeff.ja...@gmail.com');
wrote:
In 9.3 HEAD I am getting what seems to be spurious wrap-around shutdowns.
postgres=# SELECT datname, datfrozenxid, age(datfrozenxid) FROM
pg_database;
datname |
On Tuesday, May 21, 2013, Simon Riggs wrote:
I worked up a small patch to support Terabyte setting for memory.
Which is OK, but it only works for 1TB, not for 2TB or above.
I've incorporated my review into a new version, attached.
Added TB to the docs, added the macro KB_PER_TB, and made
On Tuesday, June 18, 2013 12:18 AM Sawada Masahiko wrote:
On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 2:00 PM, Amit kapila amit.kap...@huawei.com
wrote:
On Saturday, June 15, 2013 8:29 PM Sawada Masahiko wrote:
On Sat, Jun 15, 2013 at 10:34 PM, Amit kapila
amit.kap...@huawei.com wrote:
On Saturday, June
86 matches
Mail list logo
