On 17 March 2015 at 23:25, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
Possibly I'm missing something though.
I think that you may have. Did you read the commit message/docs of the
RLS commit 0004-*? You must consider the second point here, I believe:
The 3 places that RLS policies are enforced
2015-03-18 3:45 GMT+01:00 Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com:
On 3/17/15 8:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
My main question regarding this patch is whether the behavior with MD
arrays is useful at all. Suppose I give it this:
alvherre=# select
At 2015-03-14 09:44:02 +0200, hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
Perhaps it would be time to restart the discussion on standardizing
SRP as a SASL mechanism in IETF.
I haven't seen much evidence that there's any interest in doing this; in
fact, I can't remember the author of the draft you pointed to being
On 2015-03-17 20:50:48 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
On Mon, Mar 16, 2015 at 6:22 AM, Petr Jelinek p...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Do you think it is ready for committer?
In my opinion, yes.
If it wasn't for the autoconf parts of this, I'd probably agree with
you. I need to go over that
As a followup, I spoke to an IETF friend who's used and implemented both
SRP and SCRAM. He agrees that SRP is cryptographically solid, that it's
significantly more difficult to implement (and therefore has a bit of a
monoculture risk overall, though of course that wouldn't apply to us if
we were
Hello, The attached is non-search version of unique join.
It is not fully examined but looks to work as expected. Many
small changes make the patch larger but affected area is rather
small.
What do you think about this?
Hello, I don't have enough time for now but made some
considerations on
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
So, overall consensus for the FDW hook location is just before the
set_chepest()
at standard_join_search() and merge_clump(), isn't it?
Yes, I think so.
Let me make a design of FDW hook to reduce code duplications
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
This would have one significant drawback, which is that planning for
large inheritance trees (many children) would probably get noticeably
slower. (But in the common case that constraint exclusion limits a
query to scanning
=?UTF-8?B?QmVuamFtaW4gQsO2cm5nZW4tU2NobWlkdA==?= benja...@boerngen-schmidt.de
writes:
The Lateral statement does return a result, which I do not expect. I
returns an end point multiple times for diverent start points. Why? I
thought, that the selected point by the lateral is locked by the
2015-03-18 12:41 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to:
On 3/18/15 12:27 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
On 3/17/15 8:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
My main question regarding this patch is whether the behavior with MD
arrays is useful at all. Suppose I give it this:
alvherre=# select
A few days ago I posted a question on general concerning the new feature
SKIP LOCKED in PostgreSQL 9.5-dev.
For the orginal question can be found here:
http://www.postgresql.org/message-id/54f723c3.1020...@boerngen-schmidt.de
What I'm trying to archieve is to match a point from my data
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
So, overall consensus for the FDW hook location is just before the
set_chepest()
at standard_join_search() and merge_clump(), isn't it?
Yes, I think so.
Let me make a design of FDW hook to reduce code
On 3/18/15 12:27 PM, Pavel Stehule wrote:
On 3/17/15 8:06 PM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
My main question regarding this patch is whether the behavior with MD
arrays is useful at all. Suppose I give it this:
alvherre=# select array_offset('{{{1,2},{3,4},{5,6}},{{2,3},{4,5},{6,7}}}',
3);
Jeevan Chalke jeevan.cha...@gmail.com writes:
I am more concerned about this:
1.
postgres=# create or replace function
f1(a abc.test.id%type) returns int as
$$ select 1; $$
language sql;
ERROR: schema abc does not exist
Is that expected?
Yes, or at least, if it's not what we want it's
On 9 February 2015 at 20:52, Thom Brown t...@linux.com wrote:
Hi all,
Google Summer of Code 2015 is approaching. I'm intending on registering
PostgreSQL again this year.
Before I do that, I'd like to have an idea of how many people are interested
in being either a student or a mentor.
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 11:26 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Also, you're ignoring the prospect of getting better estimates and hence
better plans through having stats that dynamically adapt to the set of
partitions being scanned. Given the
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:33 AM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:34 AM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com wrote:
So, overall consensus for the FDW hook location is just before the
set_chepest()
at standard_join_search() and merge_clump(), isn't it?
The following review has been posted through the commitfest application:
make installcheck-world: tested, failed
Implements feature: tested, passed
Spec compliant: not tested
Documentation:tested, passed
This is a midway review, a later will complete it.
The patch
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
I'm still not sure the way the speculative locking works is the best
approach. Instead of clearing xmin on super-deletion, a new flag on the heap
I think someone already mentioned it, but it would be very neat if the
optimizer could be pluggable. Then many different algorithms could be
evaluated more easily.
Does it mean just to make the join order optimizer pluggable? If yes then
it is already pluggable as an extension. Is this the
Abhijit Menon-Sen wrote:
P.S. I don't know why the SRP code was removed from LibreSSL; nor am I
sure how seriously to take that. It's possible that it's only because
it's (still) rather obscure.
As I recall, the working principle of the LibreSSL guys is to remove
everything that can't be
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 12:11:22PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Justin Pryzby pry...@telsasoft.com writes:
I believe there's been a behavior change, and not sure if it's deliberate.
I
don't think there's a negative consequence for our production use, but it
confused me while summing relpages
I believe there's been a behavior change, and not sure if it's deliberate. I
don't think there's a negative consequence for our production use, but it
confused me while summing relpages for analysis purposes, as our 9.4 customers
behaved differently.
Documentation indicates that in pg9.0,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
Can you try this:
diff --git a/src/backend/postmaster/bgworker.c
b/src/backend/postmaster/bgworker.c
index f80141a..39b919f 100644
--- a/src/backend/postmaster/bgworker.c
+++ b/src/backend/postmaster/bgworker.c
@@
Justin Pryzby pry...@telsasoft.com writes:
I believe there's been a behavior change, and not sure if it's deliberate. I
don't think there's a negative consequence for our production use, but it
confused me while summing relpages for analysis purposes, as our 9.4 customers
behaved differently.
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
If we ever implement something like
COMMENT ON CURRENT_DATABASE IS ...
it will be useful, because you will be able to restore a dump into
another database and have the comment apply to the target database.
Benjamin Börngen-Schmidt wrote:
The Lateral statement does return a result, which I do not expect. I returns
an end point multiple times for diverent start points. Why? I thought, that
the selected point by the lateral is locked by the FOR UPDATE and if the
lateral selects a point that is
Jeevan Chalke wrote:
Álvaro,
I think, there are few open questions here and thus marking it back to
Waiting on Author.
Please have your views on the review comments already posted.
For some reason I missed your previous email.
Also make changes as Tom suggested about placing pstate at
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
I've been thinking that it would be nice to be able to specify a constraint
name. Naming an index directly feels wrong, as in relational and SQL
philosophy, indexes are just an implementation detail, but naming a
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Seriously? In my opinion it has to be possible to doubt whether a patch
should be committed in certain release without it being interpreted as a
personal attack.
I don't think anyone's said anything in this thread that amounts to a
personal attack.
Grzegorz Parka grzegorz.pa...@gmail.com writes:
I'm thinking of testing and improving SAIO as an extension before reaching
a satisfactory quality of code and returned plans.
Would then the destination be the /contrib and then main source tree or
would it ever stay as an extension?
I'd like
* Abhijit Menon-Sen (a...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
As a followup, I spoke to an IETF friend who's used and implemented both
SRP and SCRAM. He agrees that SRP is cryptographically solid, that it's
significantly more difficult to implement (and therefore has a bit of a
monoculture risk overall,
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:12 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Basically, the same rules apply to all commitfests, i.e. a committer can
apply anything during that period. I
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:24 PM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
If we ever implement something like
COMMENT ON CURRENT_DATABASE IS ...
it will be useful, because you will be able to restore a
Michael Paquier wrote:
I had a look at your modified version, and it looks good to me.
Thanks, pushed. (Without the va_cols change proposed downthread.)
--
Álvaro Herrerahttp://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training Services
--
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:42 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com
wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
If we ever implement something
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:01 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Seriously? In my opinion it has to be possible to doubt whether a patch
should be committed in certain release without it being interpreted as a
personal attack.
I don't think
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com wrote:
# EXPLAIN SELECT DISTINCT bid FROM pgbench_accounts;
ERROR: too many dynamic shared memory segments
This happens because we have maximum limit on the number of
dynamic shared memory segments in the system.
In
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
If we ever implement something like
COMMENT ON CURRENT_DATABASE IS ...
it will be useful, because you will be able to restore a dump into
another database and have the comment apply to the target
Jeevan,
Thanks for the review.
Jeevan Chalke wrote:
I think, there are few open questions here and thus marking it back to
Waiting on Author.
Please have your views on the review comments already posted.
Also make changes as Tom suggested about placing pstate at the beginning.
Pushed
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
Just one last doubt. Do we expose a new function called current_database
like current_catalog, current_user, ... ?
Why would we do that?
--
Robert Haas
EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com
The
Michael Paquier wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I mean, can't we just do the push unconditionally here?
Why should we install unnecessary stuff? This complicates the
installation contents, the point being to have only shared
On 03/17/2015 09:00 AM, Julien Tachoires wrote:
Here is a new version fixing this issue. I've added a new kind of TOC
entry for being able to handle pg_restore --no-tablespace case.
Looks good but I think one minor improvement could be to set the table
space of the toast entires to the same
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 2:44 AM, Alvaro Herrera
alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Michael Paquier wrote:
I had a look at your modified version, and it looks good to me.
Thanks, pushed. (Without the va_cols change proposed downthread.)
Thanks a lot! I will shortly work on the rebase for the
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:16 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
For another, Andreas has chosen to lump together __int128 and unsigned
__int128 into one test, where the latter really doesn't receive
coverage.
On my urging actually. It's pretty darn unlikely that only one variant
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 3:30 AM, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
Makes sense.
I have pushed your patch; we'll see what the buildfarm thinks of it.
Thanks.
(Sadly, the number of MSVC members is rather small and they don't run
often.)
Once Windows 10 is out, it could be installed on a Raspberry PI 2.
On 2015-03-18 12:02:07 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
diff --git a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
index cb6f8a3..173f0ba 100644
--- a/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
+++ b/src/backend/access/heap/heapam.c
@@ -2234,6 +2234,17 @@ static HeapTuple
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
Given that we don't rely on C99, I don't think that actually
matters. Lots of our platforms build on pre C99 compilers... I think it
makes sense to say that this currently only tests for a gcc extension
and might be
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 4:07 PM, Simon Riggs si...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
-1 for a time based setting.
After years of consideration, bloat is now controllable by altering
the size of the undo tablespace.
Hm. Well, fwiw the situation is rather more complicated than that. You're
correct that
On 2015-03-18 15:59:52 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Okay. Attached revision has a few tweaks that reflect the status of
int128/uint128 as specialized types that are basically only useful for
this optimization, or other similar optimizations on compilers that
either are GCC, or aim to be
On 03/18/2015 11:59 PM, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Okay. Attached revision has a few tweaks that reflect the status of
int128/uint128 as specialized types that are basically only useful for
this optimization, or other similar optimizations on compilers that
either are GCC, or aim to be compatible
Hi,
Background info first: PL/Ruby was originally maintained by Guy Decoux,
who passed away in 2008: https://www.ruby-forum.com/topic/166658 . After
his death, Akinori MUSHA forked the project and maintained it until
2010: https://github.com/knu/postgresql-plruby . Last release was on Jan
2010,
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 1:07 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:44 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 9:49 PM, Michael Paquier
michael.paqu...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Mar 5, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Fujii Masao wrote:
With
The error code is used in two places:
ereport(ERROR,
(errcode(ERRCODE_T_R_DEADLOCK_DETECTED),
errmsg(canceling statement due to conflict with
recovery),
errdetail(User transaction caused buffer deadlock with
recovery.)));
On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 08:10:45PM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:30:24AM -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Jun 10, 2014 at 10:18 AM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
I don't agree with this analysis. If the connection
On Thu, Mar 19, 2015 at 12:23 PM, Fujii Masao masao.fu...@gmail.com wrote:
Are you planning to update the patch so that it's based on the commit 0d83138?
Yes... Very soon.
--
Michael
--
Sent via pgsql-hackers mailing list (pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org)
To make changes to your subscription:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:14 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:22 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
It didn't fix the problem. IIUC, you have done this to ensure that
if worker is not already started, then update it's pid, so that we
can
* Alvaro Herrera (alvhe...@2ndquadrant.com) wrote:
One thing that Stephen commented on was the ALTER TABLE preparatory
patch. He said why not return ObjectAddress from the subcommand
routines instead of just Oid/attnum? The reason is that to interpret
the address correctly you will still
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:45 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Mar 14, 2015 at 1:04 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
# EXPLAIN SELECT DISTINCT bid FROM pgbench_accounts;
ERROR: too many dynamic shared memory segments
This happens because we have maximum
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:09 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
Just one last doubt. Do we expose a new function called
current_database
like current_catalog, current_user, ... ?
Why would we
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 3:13 PM, Tom Lane t...@sss.pgh.pa.us wrote:
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= fabriziome...@gmail.com writes:
Just one last doubt. Do we expose a new function called
current_database
like current_catalog, current_user, ... ?
There already is one. But that
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 8:01 PM, Bruce Momjian br...@momjian.us wrote:
Basically, the same rules apply to all commitfests, i.e. a committer can
apply anything during that period. I think the only restriction for the
last commitfest is that the
On 2015-03-18 13:12:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Indeed. In this case, since the patch in question is one that
improves/simplifies a patch that's already in the current commitfest,
I'm going to go ahead and push it. If you want to call a vote on
revoking my commit bit, go right ahead.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 10:26 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
On 2015-03-18 13:12:11 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Indeed. In this case, since the patch in question is one that
improves/simplifies a patch that's already in the current commitfest,
I'm going to go ahead and push it.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 2:24 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:23 PM, Fabrízio de Royes Mello
fabriziome...@gmail.com wrote:
If we ever implement something like
COMMENT ON CURRENT_DATABASE IS ...
it will be useful, because you will be able to
=?UTF-8?Q?Fabr=C3=ADzio_de_Royes_Mello?= fabriziome...@gmail.com writes:
Just one last doubt. Do we expose a new function called current_database
like current_catalog, current_user, ... ?
There already is one. But that would have nothing to do with the proposed
patch anyway, because the bits
On 2015-03-18 14:01:41 -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com writes:
Seriously? In my opinion it has to be possible to doubt whether a patch
should be committed in certain release without it being interpreted as a
personal attack.
I don't think anyone's said
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 11:41 AM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
AFAICS, there is no need to go and clear the tag after the insert has
completed.
Here's what I had in mind: the inserter tags the tuple with the speculative
insertion token, by storing the token in the t_ctid field.
On 03/18/2015 06:23 PM, Robert Haas wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 6:27 PM, Peter Geoghegan p...@heroku.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 12:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
I'm still not sure the way the speculative locking works is the best
approach. Instead of clearing xmin
Pavel Stehule wrote:
2015-03-18 12:41 GMT+01:00 Marko Tiikkaja ma...@joh.to:
I am thinking, so this behave is correct (there is no other
possible), but it is only corner case for this functionality - and
if you are thinking, so better to disallow it, I am not against. My
main focus is
In September, while researching the to_char() buffer overflow bugs fixed
in 9.4.1 (commit 0150ab567bcf5e5913e2b62a1678f84cc272441f), I found an
inconsistency in how to_char() does zero-padding for float4/8 values.
Now that 9.4.1 is released and I am home for a while, I am ready to
address this.
On 2015-03-18 14:00:51 -0700, Peter Geoghegan wrote:
Anyway, I think that it's not quite the same. For one thing, we're
talking about a GCC extension, not a type described by C99. We don't
care about snprintf support, for example.
I don't see that that has any consequence wrt Andreas' test.
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 9:19 AM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 3:11 PM, Heikki Linnakangas hlinn...@iki.fi wrote:
I've been thinking that it would be nice to be able to specify a constraint
name. Naming an index directly feels wrong, as in relational and SQL
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 12:19:36PM -0500, Bruce Momjian wrote:
On Fri, Mar 6, 2015 at 10:50:27AM +0300, Vladimir Borodin wrote:
What I have done is to update the pg_upgrade instructions to add this
required step. Updated doc patch attached. (I also added the --delete
flag to
Hello devs,
As stated earlier I was thinking to propose the integration of Postgres and
CUDA for faster execution of order by queries thru optimizing the sorting code
and sorting it with CUDA. I saw and tried to run PG Strom and ran into issues.
Moreover, PG Strom is implemented in OpenCL, not
Hi,
Reading the README first, the rest later. So you can comment on my
comments, while I actually look at the code. Parallelism, yay!
On 2015-03-18 12:02:07 -0400, Robert Haas wrote:
+Instead, we take a more pragmatic approach: we try to make as many of the
+operations that are safe outside of
On Wed, Mar 18, 2015 at 1:05 AM, Andres Freund and...@2ndquadrant.com wrote:
I think it's a pretty direct copy of the 64bit code. I'm not entirely
sure why this needs a AC_TRY_RUN with a compile fallback (for cross) and
why a AC_TRY_LINK isn't sufficient? But then, you just copied that
Álvaro,
I think, there are few open questions here and thus marking it back to Waiting
on Author.
Please have your views on the review comments already posted.
Also make changes as Tom suggested about placing pstate at the beginning.
I am more concerned about this:
1.
postgres=# create or
On Tuesday, March 17, 2015, Воронин Дмитрий carriingfat...@yandex.ru
wrote:
Make sure to show your full command(s) and the full, exact text of any
errors.
OK, I use PostgreSQL version 9.4.1.
I create cluster 'main' and connect to it. After cluster init we have
those shemas:
postgres=#
On 18 March 2015 at 03:01, Jim Nasby jim.na...@bluetreble.com wrote:
On 3/16/15 11:47 AM, Robert Haas wrote:
I am sure there are more sophisticated things to be done here, but I
guess my feeling is that time is a good way to go here for a first cut
- lots of people have suggested it, and
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 7:54 PM, Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 1:42 AM, Amit Kapila amit.kapil...@gmail.com
wrote:
The problem occurs in second loop inside DestroyParallelContext()
where it calls WaitForBackgroundWorkerShutdown(). Basically
Robert Haas robertmh...@gmail.com writes:
On Tue, Mar 17, 2015 at 10:11 AM, Kouhei Kaigai kai...@ak.jp.nec.com
wrote:
It might be an idea if foreign-scan path is not wiped out regardless of the
estimated cost, we will be able to construct an entirely remote-join path
even if
82 matches
Mail list logo
