, in the test
query I gave, it will return -1 for the length. I don't want to blame
the middleware, but I want to make sure we're diagnosing the problem
correctly.
If that query has the same problem, then we really need to think of
something else.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL
Wouldn't it be far more logical to decide that if a user has the
permissions to do a DELETE FROM table; then they have permission to do
a TRUNCATE? Why make an additional permission?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his
,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, as long as each
write is a complete set of lines and no more than PIPEBUF bytes long.
Have we determined the actual cause of the garbling?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability
as your fuzzy predicate? I suggest
you also add syntax for the matching, something like:
Select * from students where age FUZZYMATCH young;
This means that you don't interfere with existing grammer, but you have
your own bit which you can completely control.
Hope this helps,
--
Martijn van
' variables in complex_add(?, ?)?
Use the DirectFunctionCalln functions in fmgr.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
) +
ldexp(1.0,-133) + ldexp(1.0,-142);
unsigned char *a = (char*)f;
printf(Float: %g, char: %02x%02X%02X%02X\n, f, a[0], a[1], a[2], a[3]);
}
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according
phone numbers. 345678 becomes: four and thirty, six and
fifty, eight and seventy.
Takes a while to get used to that...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate
worry about
thing like toast pointer (which are important, but less likely to crash
postgres).
All this applies to index pages also.
Hope this helps,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability
as a sort off InitExpr that is executed once, then inserted into
the tree. However, that would still be too late to affect the planning.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability
that. That would imply that
user-defined types need to be able to specify how they are passed to
PLs, to *any* PL.
So fixing it for bytea is one thing, but there's a bigger issue here
that needs discussion.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From
://doxygen.postgresql.org/comment_8c-source.html#l00221
Not sure about this one. It's not wrong, but it is unusual. Maybe
someone wanted to make it so that in the future it would handle
multiple cases?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according
way
for this.
Make it a view on a real table and revoke access permissions on the
real table?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description
exactly what it's documented to do.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
know about
it
- Why are you adding it to the backend? Place it in a module.
- Read the manual on how to create new functions
- look at the examples in the contrib directory.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his
in the parser directory.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
existed in the current one, works. so what happened? and I check it, that,
the declaration of the function, I add, can be found in the installed
include files, it's local\pgsql\include\server\utils\geo_decls.h.
anyone can give me some suggestions? thankyou!
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL
!GENERATED
ISTM that as long as:
colname coltype DEFAULT (5!) GENERATED ...
works I don't see why it would be a problem to require the parentheses
in this case. Postfis operators are not going to be that common here I
think.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout [EMAIL PROTECTED] http
be kept internal and hidden from the user, just that it would exist
after that command.
What possible reason is there for allowing the user to give the array
type a name?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability
...
At any rate, the point of the remark was to take this off the table for now.
Sure, once the array types are created automatically the command
becomes completely redundant.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his
but on a different scale.
(Or vice-versa, if some gets uniqueness for multiple indexes, we can do
it for GiST also).
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
of the character in the current
database encoding is exactly that.
AFAIK there is no integer representation of a character in anything
other than Unicode. Unicode is the only case that cannot be handled by
a simple encode/decode.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http
to insert
the same key at the same time. If you know it's going to be in the same
index you can lock the page. Across multiple indexes you run into
deadlock issues.
I'm not saying it's hard, just that it's not as easy as checking each
index...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog
to know what encoding the DB is in. Though I
suppose that would call for a unicode_chr() function.
Is there any multibyte mapping other than unicode that distinguishes
between the character set and the encoding thereof?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org
?
That's what I'd advocate, but then we're not Oracle compatable...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
. However, if this
is a concern, you could always use SPI to create a cursor to iterate
over your set, That will give complete control...
Hope this helps,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability
backpatched
probably depends on how invasive it ends up being...
There's also the performance angle. The current mbverify is very
inefficient for encodings like UTF-8. You might need to refactor a bit
there...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org
in Unicode, so that at least
you round-trip consistancy.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, but I don't
think we can do anything about that...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
.)
You're right, I'm getting confused with the interaction of NULL and NOT
IN.
The multiple evaluation thing still applies, but that's minor.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his
() --- or just
make it test the contents of the satisfies-function field.
Sounds like a winner. Essentially snapshots becomes objects that have
methods you can use to interact with them. Make a new shapshot type,
most of the code doesn't need to care.
So yep, good idea.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van
to be materialised would not be equivalent
if it called any non-immutable functions. It's also much less clear to
be a win in the EXISTs case. But then, that's a costs issue the planner
can deal with...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From
to represent your number accuratly. That's probably a solved problem
too, but still...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description
of streaming). However, it is a bit clumsy.
If you get libpq to wrap each query with a DECLARE CURSOR, you'd have
to teach it what queries can and can't have it. It would be nicer to do
it at the protocol level, but I don't know if that's supported.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog
you've found a common failure, you can create
the regex and then any other failures with the same string get tagged
also, making unexplained ones easier to spot.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each
is in the pudding. If the
logs are easily available (or a subset of, say the last month) then
people could play with that and see what happens...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his
) are stored in strings (char
*).
Err, why, when there are perfectly good datatypes to store that type of
data.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate
. For example GiST can return more tuples than actually
match. That's what the amopreqcheck column is for in pg_amop.
Or am I misunderstanding?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his
the operators RECHECK so the planner does the right
thing now, but make a flag that tells the index scan *not* to recheck
this tuple. That would seem slightly less work and fit better with the
existing code. (In other words, it's an optimisation rather than a big
change).
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van
, but
you don't have to check for consistancy anymore.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
be somewhat expensive.
Hmm, I just noticed that the verify string works one character at a
time, at least that part could be dramatically optimised.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according
.
So I think it's easier that you think: just build the operator class
and make sure you use the right operator so the planner uses it. ILIKE
already maps to an operator...
Hope this helps,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his
that, but it would have to be implemented for
each language (or use threads).
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital
is
the best. At the very least what you propose is a modularity violation:
Postgres depending on undocumented private data of another system
component.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his
,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/optimizer?
Sure, what other factors were you considering?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
and made
crash safe which seems quite a lot of work for something you can
probably do during picksplit.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
by the primary or
unique column.
That's the easy case, no problem there.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
of the source
code.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
that last UPDATE can get a not-found
again, so you have to keep trying both until they work.
I think MERGE would still be cool, because then it's only one command
that has to be repeated, rather than two.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From
CREATE to DECLARE. I'm thinking of the
explicit declaration of shell types as precedent here.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description
Skyline means so
telling us what it is would be a good start
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
.
As stated you havn't given any details as to the actual problem.
However, you don't need to change the source tree at all to make a new
index on a type. You usually make the helper functions and then create
the operator class and you're done...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout
to switch
tables? I don't think it's already coded like that...
That's lock upgrading, which opens you up to deadlocks. If another
process grabs a lock after your update exclusive, you're not going to
be able to upgrade it.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http
well. Extending
doesn't happen that often relative to other database activity.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital
that indexes and temp tables wouldn't be counted. I
thought it was more of a stop people using up lots of disk space
rather than specifically stopping at a hard limit.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each
it? Where do you expect it to
be included? etc.
That might help catch misunderstandings much earlier.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
switching go away.
Then again, it's probably nowhere near as easy as I make it sound :)
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital
that the admin has done on purpose.
Why would you want to let the admin have any say at all about the
storage order?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate
.
If you really want to use pg_dump I'd suggest an option to pg_dump
--dump-dropped-columns which will include the dropped columns in the
CREATE TABLE but drop them immediatly after. It's really more a corner
case than anything else.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org
equal that
wern't before, thus possibly breaking a unique index, but it may be
possible.
I'd suggest single user mode at least, and make backups!
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according
. The data in the table isn't
very useful without the clog, and that's not stored in a tablespace...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
to take advantage
of these mechanisms if they have them. Look at it as if you have got
LVM/RAID setup for your ideas, how do you get postgres to take
advantage of them?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each
don't provide the definition you used, but:
select value from myfun(paramteres);
This isn't the usual way to return things, unless it is a set returning
function. Did you provide the return type at declaration time?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org
won't work very well then...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
% of the code base.
http://developer.spikesource.com/info/search.php?c=POSTGRESQLview=details
Yes, that was it, except I can't access the details, the redirection is
broken. However, with that info it would be nice to see which areas
could be better covered.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van
that displayed the code coverage of the
regression tests, but I can't find it now. Does anybody know?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description
sure all the data actually hits
disk. That cuts into your compression ratio...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital
working set.
So yes, if you make a really large segment, the problem you describe
may happen.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
to
8.1.5 resolved the issue.
Someone on -general just posted exactly the same problem for 8.1.7. I
wonder if the recent security update broke something else?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each
.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, you can't optimise at
all. In the case of read-committed mode, will two seq-scans always
return the same result?
Hope this helps,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate
this decision, so
it's really not our problem to fix.
That's true, but I think it would be worthwhile to invert the switch to
be --disable-thread-safety, since the number of people who don't
understand the problem far outweigh the cost of the switch.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout
On Mon, Feb 05, 2007 at 11:34:23AM -0500, Tom Lane wrote:
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org writes:
That's true, but I think it would be worthwhile to invert the switch to
be --disable-thread-safety, since the number of people who don't
understand the problem far outweigh the cost
, but it's something to keep in mind.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
not sure of the problem here.
I think the parser can tell that the expression ends at the word
cycle.
Or am I missing obvious?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability
think Windows has
that, nor can I think of a situation where you'd need to worry about
threads anyway?
Have a nice day.
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
as whatever
columnList uses. It can the merge the two parse paths, allowing it to
see further.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital
an
unsatisfactory solution.
If you have a tuplestore storing the intermediate tuples for looping,
then surely the only difference between depth and breadth searching is
that for the former new tuples goes to the front of the tuplestore, and
the latter to the end.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van
at times. FWIW, Coverity
complains about stuff here too, but I just marked it all WONTFIX :).
Have anice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description
it. Is that what you're looking for?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
I missing something?
I ran into this the other day too. But box ~ box does exist,
which worked for my purposes, but it did surprise me.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability
,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
, if the installation made it easy to use for users,
it must be safe, right?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the regular vacuum.
The overwhelming vast majoirty of tuples are going to be in one or more
indexes. Which means nearly all tuples are going to fall into this
category. So where's the benefit?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according
,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
of). This is very irritating
for scripting, so maybe a COMMIT TO X command would be auseful
addition?
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
the drive to complete other requests more quickly then
it's beneficial, even if the vacuum takes longer.
This may be a silly thought, I'm not sure how drives handle multiple
requests...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according
operators like contains and is contained by which would be
opposites of eachother, but could never be used in a b-tree class.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate
give you this automatically, since that's
your memory... Once you have the DSM to track where the dead pages are,
you can set it up to target clusters first, thus giving maximum bang
for buck.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each
the incoming string before
it knows it's dealing with XML. The string from the client must be
interpreted in the client encoding...
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate
index, check the docs.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
the input as a stream of octets). Whether that's nice, I
have no idea.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
longer than is useful.
Not that I'm volunterring to deal with this.
Have a nice day,
--
Martijn van Oosterhout kleptog@svana.org http://svana.org/kleptog/
From each according to his ability. To each according to his ability to
litigate.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
501 - 600 of 1563 matches
Mail list logo
