On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 10:35 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The flaw in this logic, of course, is that the seqscan might be cheaper
than the parameterized indexscan, but *it produces a whole lot more
rows*, meaning that any subsequent join will be a lot more expensive.
Previously
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 4:26 AM, Peter Geoghegan pe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
This does not appear to have any user-visible effect on caret position
for all variations in coercion syntax, while giving me everything that
I need. I had assumed that we were relying on things being this way,
but
On 02/28/2012 08:54 AM, Andrea Suisani wrote:
On 02/28/2012 04:52 AM, Rob Wultsch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM, jamesja...@mansionfamily.plus.com wrote:
Has anyone considered managing a system like the DragonFLY swapcache for a
DBMS like PostgreSQL?
(2012/02/29 4:07), Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Let's at least be clear about the reasons here. The fact that
postgresql_fdw_validator exists means (a) there is a possible naming
conflict that has not been discussed yet, and/or (b) the name is already
settled and we need to think of a way to make
2012/2/29 Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com:
(2012/02/29 4:07), Peter Eisentraut wrote:
Let's at least be clear about the reasons here. The fact that
postgresql_fdw_validator exists means (a) there is a possible naming
conflict that has not been discussed yet, and/or (b) the name is
Hi,
In streaming replication, after failover, new master might have lots
of un-applied
WAL files with old timeline ID. They are the WAL files which were recycled as a
future ones when the server was running as a standby. Since they will never be
used later, they don't need to be archived after
Hello
2012/2/28 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
In gram.y we have a new check_option_list nonterminal. This is mostly
identical to explain_option_list, except that the option args do not
take a NumericOnly (only opt_boolean_or_string and empty). I wonder if
it's really
On 23.02.2012 01:36, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 19:32 -0500, Dan Ports wrote:
On Tue, Feb 14, 2012 at 09:27:58AM -0600, Kevin Grittner wrote:
Heikki Linnakangasheikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 14.02.2012 04:57, Dan Ports wrote:
The easiest answer would be to just
On 22.02.2012 14:30, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Noah Mischn...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 05:04:06PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Another disadvantage of the current scheme is that there's no
particularly easy way to know that your whole cluster has
Heikki Linnakangas heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 23.02.2012 01:36, Jeff Davis wrote:
On Tue, 2012-02-14 at 19:32 -0500, Dan Ports wrote:
Hmm, it occurs to me if we have to abort a transaction due to
serialization failure involving a prepared transaction, we might
want to
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 22.02.2012 14:30, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 7:06 AM, Noah Mischn...@leadboat.com wrote:
On Sun, Feb 19, 2012 at 05:04:06PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
Another disadvantage of
On 29.02.2012 17:01, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:40 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 22.02.2012 14:30, Simon Riggs wrote:
Agreed. No reason to change a checksum unless we rewrite the block, no
matter whether page_checksums is on or off.
Shigeru Hanada shigeru.han...@gmail.com writes:
How about removing postgresql_fdw_validator from backend binary, and
changing dblink to use contrib/postgresql_fdw's validator? It breaks
some backward compatibility and requires contrib/postgresql_fdw to be
installed before using contrib/dblink
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Surely it can be done online. You'll just need a third state between off and
on, where checksums are written but not verified, while the cluster is
scanned.
Are you saying you would accept the patch
On 29.02.2012 17:42, Simon Riggs wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:30 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Surely it can be done online. You'll just need a third state between off and
on, where checksums are written but not verified, while the cluster is
scanned.
On Mon, Feb 27, 2012 at 11:54 PM, Andrea Suisani sick...@opinioni.net wrote:
On 02/28/2012 04:52 AM, Rob Wultsch wrote:
On Wed, Feb 22, 2012 at 2:31 PM, jamesja...@mansionfamily.plus.com
wrote:
Has anyone considered managing a system like the DragonFLY swapcache for
a
DBMS like
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 6:58 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 25, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Kevin Grittner
kevin.gritt...@wicourts.gov wrote:
Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
This patch extends that and actually sets the tuple header flag as
HEAP_XMIN_COMMITTED during
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Are you saying you would accept the patch if we had this?
I think I would still be uncomfortable with the hacks in the page header.
There are no hacks. There are some carefully designed changes with
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Are you saying you would accept the patch if we had this?
I think I would still be uncomfortable with the hacks in the
Hi all,
If someone wants to drop objects owned by a particular role, they'll
use DROP OWNED BY role. However, the implications of this statement
aren't easily known, and once you've run it, it's not communicated
which objects were dropped.
So could we introduce either a command to show which
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
So could we introduce either a command to show which objects are owned
by a particular role, or allow a dry-run of DROP OWNED BY?
It's always been possible to do that:
begin;
drop owned by joe;
rollback;
I believe this is already the
On 29 February 2012 17:16, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
So could we introduce either a command to show which objects are owned
by a particular role, or allow a dry-run of DROP OWNED BY?
It's always been possible to do that:
begin;
drop
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:26 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 5:44 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
You have comments from three different people, all experienced
hackers, disagreeing with this position;
Who is the third person you speak of? Perhaps they will speak again if
they wish to be heard.
Tom Lane. It was
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:41 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:24 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
Are you saying you would accept the patch if we
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The most obvious thing to do about this is to consider that one path can
dominate another on cost only if it is both cheaper *and* produces no
more rows.
Hmm. Are you sure that's the right rule? I am having trouble
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
But it is very effective at avoiding 4 out of the 5 writes you mention.
For the common case, would we not want to have (1) [WAL] and (2)
[Writing the pre-frozen tuple]?
If we only write the tuple (2), and don't capture
On 29-02-2012 14:20, Thom Brown wrote:
No, the cascade part is fine. It's the objects which won't cause a
cascade that are an issue. Putting it in a transaction for rolling
back doesn't help find out what it intends to drop.
DROP OWNED BY foo VERBOSE?
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira -
On 29 February 2012 18:15, Euler Taveira de Oliveira eu...@timbira.com wrote:
On 29-02-2012 14:20, Thom Brown wrote:
No, the cascade part is fine. It's the objects which won't cause a
cascade that are an issue. Putting it in a transaction for rolling
back doesn't help find out what it
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:20 PM, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
On 29 February 2012 17:16, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Thom Brown t...@linux.com writes:
So could we introduce either a command to show which objects are owned
by a particular role, or allow a dry-run of DROP OWNED BY?
On ons, 2012-02-08 at 09:16 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
I'm still worried about this. If we ignore a missing root.crt, then the
effect is that authentication and certificate verification might fail,
which would be annoying, but you'd notice it soon enough. But if we
ignore a missing
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 5:35 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
The most obvious thing to do about this is to consider that one path can
dominate another on cost only if it is both cheaper *and* produces no
more rows.
Hmm. Are you sure that's
I think the way we're passing down the options to the checker is a bit
of a mess. The way it is formulated, it seems to me that we'd need to
add support code in the core CheckFunction for each option we might want
to accept in the PL-specific checkers -- including what type of value
the option
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I am having trouble
constructing an example, but I feel like there might be cases where
it's possible to have path A, not parameterized, path B, parameterized
by R, and path C, parameterized by S, and maybe also path D,
On 29.02.2012 19:54, Simon Riggs wrote:
I'm beginning to lose faith that objections are being raised at a
rational level. It's not a panel game with points for clever answers,
its an engineering debate about how to add features real users want.
And they do want, so let me solve the problems by
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Indeed, and the code already knows that. However, in this example, path
A is capable of dominating the other three (being strictly less
parameterized than them), and B and C are each
Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of jue ene 26 15:58:58 -0300 2012:
On 26.01.2012 17:31, Tom Lane wrote:
The idea that occurs to me is to have the code that uses the GUC do a
verify_mbstr(noerror) on it, and silently ignore it if it doesn't pass
(maybe with a LOG message). This
Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of mié feb 29 16:09:02 -0300 2012:
On 29.02.2012 19:54, Simon Riggs wrote:
I'm beginning to lose faith that objections are being raised at a
rational level. It's not a panel game with points for clever answers,
its an engineering debate about how
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On ons, 2012-02-08 at 09:16 +0100, Magnus Hagander wrote:
Yes, ignoring a missing file in a security context is definitely not good.
It should throw an error.
We have a few bad defaults from the old days around SSL for this, but if it
requires
On ons, 2012-02-29 at 14:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
In particular, I observe that we get pushback anytime we break something
in a way that makes SSL config files be required on the client side;
see bug #6302 for most recent example.
*If* we were to make a change in libpq analogous to the server
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On ons, 2012-02-29 at 14:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
In particular, I observe that we get pushback anytime we break something
in a way that makes SSL config files be required on the client side;
see bug #6302 for most recent example.
*If* we were to
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:09 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 29.02.2012 19:54, Simon Riggs wrote:
I'm beginning to lose faith that objections are being raised at a
rational level. It's not a panel game with points for clever answers,
its an engineering
On 29.02.2012 21:18, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of mié feb 29 16:09:02 -0300 2012:
I thought my view on how this should be done was already clear, but just
in case it isn't, let me restate: Enlarge the page header to make room
for the checksum. To handle
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Note that if we want such an utility to walk and transform pages, we
probably need a marker in the catalogs somewhere so that pg_upgrade can
make sure that it was done in all candidate tables -- which is something
On sön, 2011-05-08 at 19:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I believe that the make check target in src/test/isolation is
fundamentally unportable, as is illustrated by the fact that buildfarm
member coypu is currently choking on it. The reason is that the
pg_isolation_regress program depends on
On 29.02.2012 21:30, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Note that if we want such an utility to walk and transform pages, we
probably need a marker in the catalogs somewhere so that pg_upgrade can
make sure that it was done in
On ons, 2012-02-29 at 14:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On ons, 2012-02-29 at 14:20 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
In particular, I observe that we get pushback anytime we break something
in a way that makes SSL config files be required on the client side;
see
On 02/29/2012 02:33 PM, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
On sön, 2011-05-08 at 19:35 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
I believe that the make check target in src/test/isolation is
fundamentally unportable, as is illustrated by the fact that buildfarm
member coypu is currently choking on it. The reason is that
Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of mié feb 29 16:29:26 -0300 2012:
On 29.02.2012 21:18, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of mié feb 29 16:09:02 -0300
2012:
I thought my view on how this should be done was already clear, but just
in case it
Hello
2012/2/29 Alvaro Herrera alvhe...@commandprompt.com:
I think the way we're passing down the options to the checker is a bit
of a mess. The way it is formulated, it seems to me that we'd need to
add support code in the core CheckFunction for each option we might want
to accept in the
On 29-02-2012 15:23, Thom Brown wrote:
Or just change it to output a verbose notice without changing the syntax?
I can't see why we will do it only for DROP OWNED. Chat messages are annoying
unless the user asks for it (that's why I suggested VERBOSE).
--
Euler Taveira de Oliveira -
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
I've attached a new version that includes the UINT64_FMT fix, some edits of
your newest comments, and a rerun of pgindent on the new files. I see no
other issues precluding
On 29 February 2012 20:33, Euler Taveira de Oliveira eu...@timbira.com wrote:
On 29-02-2012 15:23, Thom Brown wrote:
Or just change it to output a verbose notice without changing the syntax?
I can't see why we will do it only for DROP OWNED. Chat messages are annoying
unless the user asks for
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I am starting to look at this patch now. I'm wondering exactly why the
decision was made to continue storing btree-style statistics for arrays,
in addition to the new stuff. The pg_statistic rows for array columns
tend to
Peter Eisentraut pete...@gmx.net writes:
On ons, 2012-02-29 at 14:27 -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Hm? Obviously I misunderstood what changes you were proposing to make,
so would you mind spelling it out?
The details are to be determined, but a possible change would likely be
that instead of
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I am starting to look at this patch now. I'm wondering exactly why the
decision was made to continue storing btree-style statistics for arrays,
Probably, btree statistics
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 1:09 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 12:39 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I am starting to look at this patch now. I'm wondering exactly why the
decision was made to continue
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 6:14 PM, Christopher Browne cbbro...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:14 AM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
But it is very effective at avoiding 4 out of the 5 writes you mention.
For the common case, would we not want to have (1) [WAL] and (2)
Excerpts from Thom Brown's message of mié feb 29 17:50:14 -0300 2012:
On 29 February 2012 20:33, Euler Taveira de Oliveira eu...@timbira.com
wrote:
On 29-02-2012 15:23, Thom Brown wrote:
Or just change it to output a verbose notice without changing the syntax?
I can't see why we will
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
On 29.02.2012 21:30, Robert Haas wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:18 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Note that if we want such an utility to walk and transform pages, we
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, I have implemented both Roberts and Àlvaro's ideas in my patch.
I only add the .old suffix to pg_controldata when link mode is used, and
I now do it after the schema has been created (the most common failure
case for
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
The utility would run in the old cluster before upgrading, so the the flag
would have to be present in the old version. pg_upgrade would check that the
flag
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié feb 29 18:34:27 -0300 2012:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
The utility would run in the old cluster before upgrading, so the the flag
would
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
The utility would run in the old cluster before upgrading, so the the flag
would have to
Hi all,
[Bcc'ed Tom Lane as he had done the initial investigation on this.]
Following up on the earlier discussions in
[1] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2010-11/msg01575.php
and
[2] http://archives.postgresql.org/pgsql-hackers/2011-08/msg00330.php
with an initial fix in
[3]
The most obvious thing to do about this is to consider that one path can
dominate another on cost only if it is both cheaper *and* produces no
more rows. But I'm concerned about the cost of inserting yet another
test condition into add_path, which is slow enough already. Has anyone
got an idea
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Alexander Korotkov aekorot...@gmail.com writes:
On Mon, Jan 23, 2012 at 7:58 PM, Noah Misch n...@leadboat.com wrote:
I've attached a new version that includes the UINT64_FMT fix, some edits of
your newest comments, and a
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:40 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Indeed, and the code already knows that. However, in this example, path
A is capable of dominating the other three
Nathan Boley npbo...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I am starting to look at this patch now. I'm wondering exactly why the
decision was made to continue storing btree-style statistics for arrays,
in addition to the new stuff.
If I
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 4:34 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Easier for who? I don't care for the idea of code that has to cope with
two page formats, or before long N page formats, because if we don't
have some mechanism like this then we will
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:08 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I think you're just assuming that without any solid evidence. My point
is precisely that if the more-parameterized path *fails* to generate
fewer rows, we want add_path to notice that
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 04:34:24PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, I have implemented both Roberts and Àlvaro's ideas in my patch.
I only add the .old suffix to pg_controldata when link mode is used, and
I now do it after
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Nathan Boley npbo...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 12:39 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
I am starting to look at this patch now. I'm wondering exactly why the
decision was made to continue storing
Nathan Boley npbo...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:43 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Nathan Boley npbo...@gmail.com writes:
If I understand you're suggestion, queries of the form
SELECT * FROM rel
WHERE ARRAY[ 1,2,3,4 ] = x
AND x =ARRAY[ 1, 2, 3, 1000];
would no
On Feb 29, 2012, at 6:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 04:34:24PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, I have implemented both Roberts and Àlvaro's ideas in my patch.
I only add the .old suffix to
On 2/29/12 3:53 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Excerpts from Tom Lane's message of mié feb 29 18:34:27 -0300 2012:
Robert Haasrobertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 2:33 PM, Heikki Linnakangas
heikki.linnakan...@enterprisedb.com wrote:
The utility would run in the old cluster
I'm curious about the LeafNode stuff. Is this something that could be
done by expression_tree_walker? I'm not completely familiar with it so
maybe there's some showstopper such as some node tags not being
supported, or maybe it just doesn't help. But I'm curious.
--
Álvaro Herrera
Jim Nasby j...@nasby.net writes:
On 2/29/12 3:53 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
.. in fact this is precisely what killed Zdenek Kotala's idea of
upgrading.
This is also why Simon has avoided the whole upgrade thing with his 16 bit
checksum idea (otherwise presumably we'd be looking at bigger
On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@commandprompt.com wrote:
Excerpts from Heikki Linnakangas's message of jue ene 26 15:58:58 -0300 2012:
On 26.01.2012 17:31, Tom Lane wrote:
The idea that occurs to me is to have the code that uses the GUC do a
verify_mbstr(noerror) on
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 06:22:27PM -0500, A.M. wrote:
On Feb 29, 2012, at 6:02 PM, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 04:34:24PM -0500, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Feb 28, 2012 at 9:45 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
OK, I have implemented both Roberts and Àlvaro's
80 matches
Mail list logo
