On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 4:33 PM, Ashesh Vashi <ashesh.va...@enterprisedb.com > wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:58 PM, Anthony Emengo <aeme...@pivotal.io> > wrote: > >> I was expecting a separate layer between the tree implementation, and >>> aciTree adaptor. >>> Please find the patch for the example. >>> It will separate the two layers, and easy to replace with the new >>> implementation in future. >> >> >> In general, we want defer the separation of the layers for now. Even >> though we might assume that this is the direction we want to go in. It's >> simply too early to be making such an architectural leap. For right now, we >> just know that we need the decoupling, but don't know what if we'd need the >> 2 layers *as implemented*. The principle we're adhering to here is the >> Last Responsible Moment principle, which states that you only make the >> changes that you feel is necessary for the given problems you're facing: >> https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-last-responsible-moment/ >> >> I would not like to see that changes in this patch. >>> I would like us to come up with the actual design about the hot >>> pluggability before going in this direction. >> >> >> In our point of view these 2 changes are not related. One thing is the >> internal code organization of the application, other thing is allowing >> third party to drop code in the application and it just work. These 2 >> should be talked separately, but the hot pluggability is not something that >> will be address by this work we are doing right now. >> > Neither - it should be part of this change. > It should be addressed separately, and discussed. > I agree. As long as this work doesn't make the pluggability problem worse, that problem should be considered separately. So given Anthony's comments, are you happy with this patch? > > -- Thanks, Ashesh > >> >> Anthony && Joao >> >> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 11:03 AM, Ashesh Vashi < >> ashesh.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> On Mon, Apr 30, 2018 at 8:30 PM, Ashesh Vashi < >>> ashesh.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>> >>>> On Sat, Apr 28, 2018 at 3:55 AM, Joao De Almeida Pereira < >>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi Hackers, >>>>> As you are aware we kept on working on the patch, so we are attaching >>>>> to this email a new version of the patch. >>>>> This new version contains all the changes in the previous one plus >>>>> more extractions of functions and refactoring of code. >>>>> >>>>> The objective of this patch is to create a separation between pgAdmin >>>>> and the ACI Tree. We are doing this because we realized that at this point >>>>> in time we have the ACI Tree all over the code of pgAdmin. I found a very >>>>> interesting article that really talks about this: >>>>> https://medium.freecodecamp.org/code-dependencies-are-the-de >>>>> vil-35ed28b556d >>>>> >>>>> In this patch there are some visions and ideas about the location of >>>>> the code, the way to organize it and also try to pave the future for a >>>>> application that is stable, easy to develop on and that can be release at >>>>> a >>>>> times notice. >>>>> >>>>> We are investing a big chunk of our time in doing this refactoring, >>>>> but while doing that we also try to respond to the patches sent to the >>>>> mailing list. We would like the feedback from the community because we >>>>> believe this is a changing point for the application. The idea is to >>>>> change >>>>> the way we develop this application, instead of only correcting a bug of >>>>> developing a feature, with every commit we should correct the bug or >>>>> develop a feature but leave the code a little better than we found it >>>>> (Refactoring, refactoring, refactoring). This is hard work but that is >>>>> what >>>>> the users from pgAdmin expect from this community of developers. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ====== >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> It is a huge patch >>>>> 86 files changed, 5492 inserts, 1840 >>>>> deletions >>>>> and we would like to get your feedback as soon as possible, because we >>>>> are continuing to work on it which means it is going to grow in size. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> At this point in time we still have 124 of 176 calls to the function >>>>> itemData from ACITree. >>>>> >>>>> What does each patch contain: >>>>> 0001: >>>>> Very simple patch, we found out that the linter was not looking into >>>>> all the javascript test files, so this patch will ensure it is >>>>> >>>> Committed the patch along with the regression introduced because of >>>> this patch. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> 0002: >>>>> New Tree abstraction. This patch contains the new Tree that works as >>>>> an adaptor for ACI Tree and is going to be used on all the extractions >>>>> that >>>>> we are doing. >>>>> >>>> >>>> I was expecting a separate layer between the tree implementation, and >>>> aciTree adaptor. >>>> Please find the patch for the example. >>>> >>>> It will separate the two layers, and easy to replace with the new >>>> implemenation in future. >>>> >>> >>> Oops forgot to attach the patch. >>> Please find the patch attached. >>> >>> -- Thanks, Ashesh >>> >>>> >>>>> 0003: >>>>> Code that extracts, wrap with tests and replace ACI Tree invocations. >>>>> >>>> There are many small cases left in the patches. >>>> Hence - I would like to know the TODO list created by you. >>>> >>>> e.g. When we remove any of the object from the database server, we're >>>> not yet removing the respective node from the new implementation, and its >>>> children. >>>> >>>>> >>>>> We start creating new pattern for the location of Javascript files >>>>> and their structure. >>>>> >>>> I would not like to see that changes in this patch. >>>> I would like us to come up with the actual design about the hot >>>> pluggability before going in this direction. >>>> >>>>> Create patterns for creation of dialogs (backup and restore) >>>>> >>>> It's better - we don't change the directory structure at the moment. >>>> >>>> I am not against dividing the big javascript files in small chunks, but >>>> - I would like us to discuss first about the hot plugins design first. >>>> >>>> -- Thanks, Ashesh >>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>>> >>>>> Thanks >>>>> Joao >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018 at 5:34 AM Ashesh Vashi < >>>>> ashesh.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> I have quite a few comments for the patch. >>>>>> I will send them soon. >>>>>> >>>>>> On Fri, Apr 27, 2018, 14:45 Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> How is your work on this going Ashesh? Will you be committing today? >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 25, 2018 at 8:52 AM, Dave Page <dp...@pgadmin.org> >>>>>>> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Ashesh; you had agreed to work on this early this week. Please >>>>>>>> ensure you do so today. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thanks. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 24, 2018 at 8:13 PM, Joao De Almeida Pereira < >>>>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Hi Hackers, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Can someone review and merge this patch? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>> Joao >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> On Wed, Apr 18, 2018 at 10:23 AM Joao De Almeida Pereira < >>>>>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Hi Hackers, >>>>>>>>>> Any other comment about this patch? >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>> Joao >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 12:00 PM Joao De Almeida Pereira < >>>>>>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Hello Khushboo >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, Apr 9, 2018 at 1:59 AM Khushboo Vashi < >>>>>>>>>>> khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joao, >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I have reviewed your patch and have some suggestions. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sat, Apr 7, 2018 at 12:43 AM, Joao De Almeida Pereira < >>>>>>>>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Hello Murtuza/Dave, >>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes now the extracted functions are spread into different >>>>>>>>>>>>> files. The intent would be to make the files as small as >>>>>>>>>>>>> possible, and also >>>>>>>>>>>>> to group and name them in a way that would be easy to understand >>>>>>>>>>>>> what each >>>>>>>>>>>>> file is doing without the need of opening it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> As a example: >>>>>>>>>>>>> static/js/backup will contain all the backup related >>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality inside of this folder we can see the file: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> menu_utils.js At this moment in time we decided to group all >>>>>>>>>>>>> the functions that are related to the menu, but we can split that >>>>>>>>>>>>> also if >>>>>>>>>>>>> we believe it is easier to see. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> It's really very good to see the separated code for backup >>>>>>>>>>>> module. As we have done for backup, we would like do it for other >>>>>>>>>>>> PG >>>>>>>>>>>> utilities like restore, maintenance etc. >>>>>>>>>>>> Considering this, we should separate the code in a way that >>>>>>>>>>>> some of the common functionalities can be used for other modules >>>>>>>>>>>> like menu >>>>>>>>>>>> (as you have mentioned above), dialogue factory etc. >>>>>>>>>>>> Also, I think these functionalities should be in their >>>>>>>>>>>> respective static folder instead of pgadmin/static. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> About the location of the files. The move of the files to >>>>>>>>>>> pgadmin/static/js was made on purpose in order to clearly separate >>>>>>>>>>> Javascript from python code. >>>>>>>>>>> The rational behind it was >>>>>>>>>>> - Create a clear separation between the backend and frontend >>>>>>>>>>> - Having Javascript code concentrated in a single place, >>>>>>>>>>> hopefully, will encourage to developers to look for a >>>>>>>>>>> functionality, that >>>>>>>>>>> is already implemented in another modules, because they are right >>>>>>>>>>> there. >>>>>>>>>>> (When we started this journey we realized that the 'nodes' have a >>>>>>>>>>> big >>>>>>>>>>> groups of code that could be shared, but because the Javascript is >>>>>>>>>>> spread >>>>>>>>>>> everywhere it is much harder to look for it) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> There are some drawbacks of this separation: >>>>>>>>>>> - When creating a new module we will need to put the javascript >>>>>>>>>>> in a separate location from the backend code >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> static/js/datagrid folder contains all the datagrid related >>>>>>>>>>>>> functionality >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Same as backup module, this should be in it's respective >>>>>>>>>>>> static/js folder. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Inside of the folder we can see the files: >>>>>>>>>>>>> get_panel_title.js is responsible for retrieving the name of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the panel >>>>>>>>>>>>> show_data.js is responsible for showing the datagrid >>>>>>>>>>>>> show_query_tool.js is responsible for showing the query tool >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Does this structure make sense? >>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you give an example of a comment that you think is missing >>>>>>>>>>>>> and that could help? >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> As a personal note, unless the algorithm is very obscure or >>>>>>>>>>>>> very complicated, I believe that if the code needs comments it is >>>>>>>>>>>>> a signal >>>>>>>>>>>>> that something needs to change in terms of naming, structure of >>>>>>>>>>>>> the part in >>>>>>>>>>>>> question. This being said, I am open to add some comments that >>>>>>>>>>>>> might help >>>>>>>>>>>>> people. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> You are right, with the help of naming convention and structure >>>>>>>>>>>> of the code, any one can get the idea about the code. But it is >>>>>>>>>>>> very useful >>>>>>>>>>>> to understand the code >>>>>>>>>>>> very easily with the proper comments especially when there are >>>>>>>>>>>> multiple developers working on a single project. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I found some of the places where it would be great to have >>>>>>>>>>>> comments. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> - treeMenu: new tree.Tree() in a browser.js >>>>>>>>>>>> - tree.js (especially Tree class) >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> About the comment point I need a more clear understanding on >>>>>>>>>>> what kind of comments you are looking for. Because when you read the >>>>>>>>>>> function names you understand the intent, what they are doing. The >>>>>>>>>>> parameters also explain what you need to pass into them. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> If what you are looking for in these comments is the reasoning >>>>>>>>>>> being the change itself, then that should be present in the commit >>>>>>>>>>> message. >>>>>>>>>>> Specially because this is going to be a very big patch with a very >>>>>>>>>>> big >>>>>>>>>>> number of changes. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>> Joao >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>> Khushboo >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, Apr 6, 2018 at 4:48 AM Murtuza Zabuawala < >>>>>>>>>>>>> murtuza.zabuaw...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joao, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Patch looks good and working as expected. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> I also agree with Dave, Can we please add some comments in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> each file which can help us to understand the flow, I'm saying >>>>>>>>>>>>>> because now >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the code is segregated in so many separate files it will be hard >>>>>>>>>>>>>> to keep >>>>>>>>>>>>>> track of the flow from one file to another when debugging. >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regards, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Murtuza Zabuawala >>>>>>>>>>>>>> EnterpriseDB: http://www.enterprisedb.com >>>>>>>>>>>>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 7:08 PM, Joao De Almeida Pereira < >>>>>>>>>>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Khushboo, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attached you can find both patches rebased >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, Apr 5, 2018 at 6:31 AM Khushboo Vashi < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> khushboo.va...@enterprisedb.com> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Joao, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Can you please rebase the second patch? >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Khushboo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Tue, Apr 3, 2018 at 12:15 AM, Joao De Almeida Pereira < >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> jdealmeidapere...@pivotal.io> wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Hackers, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Attached you can find the patch that will start to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decouple pgAdmin from ACITree library. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch is intended to be merged after 3.0, because we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> do not want to cause any entropy or delay the release, but we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> want to start >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the discussion and show some code. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This job that we started is a massive tech debt chore that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will take some time to finalize and we would love the help of >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the community >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to do it. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *Summary of the patch:* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0001 patch: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Creates a new tree that will allow us to create a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> separation between the application and ACI Tree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Creates a Fake Tree (Test double, for reference on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> available test doubles: https://martinfowler. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> com/bliki/TestDouble.html) that can be used to inplace to >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replace the ACITree and also encapsulate the new tree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> behavior on our tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Adds tests for all the tree functionalities >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 0002 patch: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Extracts, refactors, adds tests and remove dependency >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> from ACI Tree on: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - getTreeNodeHierarchy >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - on backup.js: menu_enabled, menu_enabled_server, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> start_backup_global_server, backup_objects >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - on datagrid.js: show_data_grid, get_panel_title, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> show_query_tool >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Start using sprintf-js as Underscore.String is >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> deprecating sprintf function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This patch represents only 10 calls to ACITree.itemData >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> out of 176 that are spread around our code >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *In Depth look on the process behind the patch:* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> We started writing this patch with the idea that we need >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to decouple pgAdmin4 from ACITree, because ACITree is no >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> longer supported, >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the documentation is non existent and ACITree is no longer >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> being actively >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> developed. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Our process: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 1. We "randomly" selected a function that is part of the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACITree. From this point we decided to replace that function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with our own >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> version. The function that we choose was "itemData". >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The function gives us all the "data" that a specific node >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the tree find. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given in order to replace the tree we would need to have a >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function that would give us the same information. We had 2 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> options: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a) Create a tree with a function called itemData >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - At first view this was the simpler solution >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Would keep the status quo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Not a OOP approach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Not very flexible >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> b) Create a tree that would return a node given an ID >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and then the node would be responsible for giving it's data. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pros: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - OOP Approach >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - More flexible and we do not need to bring the tree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> around, just a node >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Cons: >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Break the current status quo >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Given these 2 options we decided to go for a more OOP >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> approach creating a Tree and a TreeNode classes, that in the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> future will be >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> renamed to ACITreeWrapper and TreeNode. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 2. After we decided on the starting point we searched for >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurrences of the function "itemData" and we found out that >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> there were 303 >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> occurrences of "itemData" in the code and roughly 176 calls >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to the function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> itself (some of the hits were variable names). >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3. We selected the first file on the search and found the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function that was responsible for calling the itemData >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 4. Extracted the function to a separate file >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 5. Wrap this function with tests >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 6. Refactor the function to ES6, give more declarative >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> names to variables and break the functions into smaller chunks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 7. When all the tests were passing we replaced ACITree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> with our Tree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 8. We ensured that all tests were passing >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 9. Remove function from the original file and use the new >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> function >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 10. Ensure everything still works >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 11. Find the next function and execute from step 4 until >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> all the functions are replaced, refactored and tested. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> As you can see by the process this is a pretty huge >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> undertake, because of the number of calls to the function. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> This is just the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> first step on the direction of completely isolating the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ACITree so that we >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can solve the problem with a large number of elements on the >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> *What is on our radar that we need to address:* >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Finish the complete decoupling of the ACITree >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Performance of the current tree implementation >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> - Tweak the naming of the Tree class to explicitly tell >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> us this is to use only with ACITree. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thanks >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Joao >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> Dave Page >>>>>>>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com >>>>>>>> Twitter: @pgsnake >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com >>>>>>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> Dave Page >>>>>>> Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com >>>>>>> Twitter: @pgsnake >>>>>>> >>>>>>> EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com >>>>>>> The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>> >>> >> > -- Dave Page Blog: http://pgsnake.blogspot.com Twitter: @pgsnake EnterpriseDB UK: http://www.enterprisedb.com The Enterprise PostgreSQL Company
