On Mon, Dec 21, 2015 at 1:00 PM, Scott Marlowe
wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Sterpu Victor wrote:
> > Thank you.
> >
> > I used the syntax with 2 indexes, it works for me.
> > But why does NULL != NULL?
>
> Because NULL literally means "an unknown, possibly unknowable value."
>
> Yo
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 11:39 PM, Sterpu Victor wrote:
> Thank you.
>
> I used the syntax with 2 indexes, it works for me.
> But why does NULL != NULL?
Because NULL literally means "an unknown, possibly unknowable value."
You need to stop thinking of NULL as A value. It is not.
--
Sent via pg
t;Sterpu Victor"
Cc: "Marc Mamin" ; "PostgreSQL General"
; "Andreas Kretschmer"
; "Scott Marlowe"
Sent: 12/21/2015 8:44:14 AM
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Unique index problem
2015-12-21 7:39 GMT+01:00 Sterpu Victor :
Thank you.
I used the synta
"Marc Mamin"
> To: "Sterpu Victor"
> Cc: "PostgreSQL General" ; "Andreas
> Kretschmer" ; "Scott Marlowe" <
> scott.marl...@gmail.com>
> Sent: 12/20/2015 11:44:35 PM
> Subject: AW: [GENERAL] Unique index problem
>
/20/2015 11:44:35 PM
Subject: AW: [GENERAL] Unique index problem
pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org
[pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org]" im Auftrag von "Scott
Marlowe [scott.marl...@gmail.com]
ndet: Sonntag, 20. Dezember 2015 17:02
Sterpu Victor
Po
On 12/20/15 10:18 AM, Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
test=*# create unique index on foo(a,b,c) where a is not null and b is
not null and c is not null;
CREATE INDEX
As you discovered, you'd have to build separate indexes for each of the
nullable fields:
UNIQUE ON (a,b) WHERE c IS NULL
a,c WHERE b
pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org [pgsql-general-ow...@postgresql.org]"
im Auftrag von "Scott Marlowe [scott.marl...@gmail.com]
ndet: Sonntag, 20. Dezember 2015 17:02
Sterpu Victor
PostgreSQL General
eff: Re: [GENERAL] Unique index problem
un, De
Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
> Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
>
> >
> > Maybe there are better solutions, it's a quick hack ;-)
>
> better solution:
sorry, doesn't work =:(
Andreas
--
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That will just be a completely
unintentional side effect.
Andreas Kretschmer wrote:
>
> Maybe there are better solutions, it's a quick hack ;-)
better solution:
test=*# create unique index on foo(a,b,c) where a is not null and b is
not null and c is not null;
CREATE INDEX
(partial index)
Andreas
--
Really, I'm not out to destroy Microsoft. That w
Sterpu Victor wrote:
> Hello
>
> I created a unique index that doesn't seem to work when one column is NULL.
> Index is created like this: CREATE UNIQUE INDEX lab_tests_groups_siui_uni ON
> lab_tests_groups_siui(id_lab_tests_siui, id_lab_tests_groups, valid_from,
> id_lab_sample_types);
> Now I
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 9:00 AM, Scott Marlowe wrote:
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Sterpu Victor wrote:
>> Hello
>>
>> I created a unique index that doesn't seem to work when one column is NULL.
>> Index is created like this: CREATE UNIQUE INDEX lab_tests_groups_siui_uni ON
>> lab_tests_gro
On Sun, Dec 20, 2015 at 8:50 AM, Sterpu Victor wrote:
> Hello
>
> I created a unique index that doesn't seem to work when one column is NULL.
> Index is created like this: CREATE UNIQUE INDEX lab_tests_groups_siui_uni ON
> lab_tests_groups_siui(id_lab_tests_siui, id_lab_tests_groups, valid_from,
>
Hello
I created a unique index that doesn't seem to work when one column is
NULL.
Index is created like this: CREATE UNIQUE INDEX
lab_tests_groups_siui_uni ON lab_tests_groups_siui(id_lab_tests_siui,
id_lab_tests_groups, valid_from, id_lab_sample_types);
Now I can run this insert twice and I w
On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 5:23 AM, Lee Jason wrote:
> {"id": "12345",
> "bags": [{
> "sku": "abc123",
> "price": 0,
> },
> {
> "sku": "abc123",
> "price": 0,
> }]
> }
That's invalid JSON - there are stray commas.
> However, I want sku of bags to be unique. It means the json can't
On 9/21/2014 5:23 AM, Lee Jason wrote:
> *
> *
> Any suggestions, please? Thank you.
store your structured data in conventional SQL tables.
--
john r pierce 37N 122W
somewhere on the middle of the left coast
Hi forks,
I am testing postgresql 9.4 beta2 right now. I am wondering if it is possible
to create a unique index on embedded json object?
For example,
I create a table names "products"
CREATE TABLE products (oid serial primary key, data jsonb)
Now, I try to insert json object into data column.
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 11:50 AM, pg noob wrote:
> In PostgreSQL 8.4...
>
> I am wondering if autovacuum will periodically rebuild indexes?
It doesn't rebuild indexes, it marks empty index pages for reuse.
> If not, how advisable is it to reindex periodically?
Here described the recommendations
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 1:50 PM, pg noob wrote:
>
> Hi all,
>
> In PostgreSQL 8.4...
>
> I am wondering if autovacuum will periodically rebuild indexes?
it will not. REINDEX requires a heavy lock and for most applications
it would be just plain untenable to be run without some type of
application
Hi all,
In PostgreSQL 8.4...
I am wondering if autovacuum will periodically rebuild indexes?
If not, how advisable is it to reindex periodically?
We recently had a case of unique index corruption which ended up allowing
duplicate
primary key IDs to get inserted and caused widespread data model
On Thu, 2009-08-20 at 13:35 +0200, Harald Fuchs wrote:
> Have a look at http://pgfoundry.org/projects/temporal
The temporal project on pgfoundry only provides the time period type,
which is (hopefully) useful, but it does not help with a non-overlapping
constraint.
Please see my other project her
Greg Stark writes:
> On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
>> I don't believe it is possible to use a btree index for this purpose,
>> because there just isn't a way to express "overlaps" as a total order.
> That's true for the general case of indexing ranges but I don't think
> that's
On Thu, Aug 20, 2009 at 3:14 PM, Tom Lane wrote:
> I don't believe it is possible to use a btree index for this purpose,
> because there just isn't a way to express "overlaps" as a total order.
That's true for the general case of indexing ranges but I don't think
that's true for the case where ove
Gerhard Heift writes:
> I try to create an unique index for a (time)period, and my goal is to
> prevent two overlapping periods in a row.
> To use the btree index I added a compare function:
>return
> CASE
> WHEN $1.next <= $2.first THEN -1
> WHEN $2.next <= $1.first
In article <20090820065819.ga2...@gheift.kawo1.rwth-aachen.de>,
Gerhard Heift writes:
> Hello,
> I try to create an unique index for a (time)period, and my goal is to
> prevent two overlapping periods in a row.
> ...
> Is there another solution to solve my problem?
Have a look at http://pgfoun
Hello,
I try to create an unique index for a (time)period, and my goal is to
prevent two overlapping periods in a row.
For this I created a type with following command:
CREATE TYPE period AS
("first" timestamp with time zone,
"next" timestamp with time zone);
To use the btree index I add
"Kynn Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> In short, my question is: is there a way to designate a pre-existing
> UNIQUE INDEX (based on data contained in NOT NULL fields) as the basis
> for a table's PRIMARY KEY?
No. If there were, that client software you mention would very likely
still get con
This is a follow-up to a question I asked earlier.
On 10/19/07, Gregory Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What you need is:
>
> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX foo_uniq_x_y on foo (canonicalize(x,y));
>
> > LOCATION: base_yyerror, scan.l:795
OK, now, what if instead of this
-> ALTER TABLE foo ADD CONSTRAI
Michael Fuhr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 07:07:11PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> I am interested to know if I can define an unique index on a timestamp
>> column to reject values within one hour.
Perhaps
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX foo ON tab (date_trunc('hour', co
On Sun, Apr 16, 2006 at 07:07:11PM +0300, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am interested to know if I can define an unique index on a timestamp
> column to reject values within one hour.
Last month I posted an idea for enforcing unique constraints on
date ranges by using a composite type and a custom
hello,
I am interested to know if I can define an unique index on a timestamp
column to reject values within one hour.
insert into table(timestamp_col) values(LOCALTIMESTAMP);
insert into table(timestamp_col) values(LOCALTIMESTAMP + '5
minutes'::INTERVAL);
I want the second insert to fail w
Hrishi Joshi wrote:
Hi,
I need to define a Unique index on 3 non-PK fields (composite key) on my
table in PostgreSQL 8.0.3.
The problem is, if any of those 3 fields is Null, PostgreSQL allows
duplicate rows to be inserted. While searching through archives, I found
more information about this.
On 11 Oct 2005 17:36:59 -0500, Hrishi Joshi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I need to define a Unique index on 3 non-PK fields (composite key) on my
> table in PostgreSQL 8.0.3.
>
> The problem is, if any of those 3 fields is Null, PostgreSQL allows
> duplicate rows to be inserted. While searc
On Tue, 11 Oct 2005, Hrishi Joshi wrote:
> I need to define a Unique index on 3 non-PK fields (composite key) on my
> table in PostgreSQL 8.0.3.
>
> The problem is, if any of those 3 fields is Null, PostgreSQL allows
> duplicate rows to be inserted. While searching through archives, I found
> mor
Hrishi Joshi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I need to define a Unique index on 3 non-PK fields (composite key) on my
> table in PostgreSQL 8.0.3.
> The problem is, if any of those 3 fields is Null, PostgreSQL allows
> duplicate rows to be inserted.
That is the behavior defined by the SQL standard.
Hi,
I need to define a Unique index on 3 non-PK fields (composite key) on my
table in PostgreSQL 8.0.3.
The problem is, if any of those 3 fields is Null, PostgreSQL allows
duplicate rows to be inserted. While searching through archives, I found
more information about this.
But I need to know how
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX name on table(param1,param2);
>
> How to create such unique index when param2 is bool type, and this param2
> should be accepted only in case of true ?
>
> I tried: CREATE UNIQUE INDEX name on table(par
On Thu, 2005-05-19 at 09:49, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX name on table(param1,param2);
>
> How to create such unique index when param2 is bool type, and this param2
> should be accepted only in case of true ?
>
> I tried: CREATE UNIQUE INDEX name on table(param1,(param2 = 'tru
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX name on table(param1,param2);
How to create such unique index when param2 is bool type, and this param2
should be accepted only in case of true ?
I tried: CREATE UNIQUE INDEX name on table(param1,(param2 = 'true'));
but it's not working.
CREATE UNIQUE I
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX name on table(param1,param2);
How to create such unique index when param2 is bool type, and this
param2 should be accepted only in case of true ?
I tried: CREATE UNIQUE INDEX name on table(param1,(param2 = 'true'));
but it's not working.
Something like:
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX name on table(param1,param2);
How to create such unique index when param2 is bool type, and this param2
should be accepted only in case of true ?
I tried: CREATE UNIQUE INDEX name on table(param1,(param2 = 'true'));
but it's not working.
Regards,
Mac
-
Am Donnerstag, den 20.01.2005, 06:09 -0800 schrieb J. Greenlees:
> Tino Wildenhain wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Am Mittwoch, den 19.01.2005, 15:02 -0800 schrieb J. Greenlees:
> >
> >>Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> >>
> >>># [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-01-20 01:35:32 +1100:
> >>>
> >>>
> i have a unique inde
Yes.
I was wrong.
Sorry about the noise.
-Original Message-
From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 12:01 PM
To: Dann Corbit
Cc: Tom Lane; Greg Stark; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Unique Index
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Dann
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Would the constraint not be satisfied if each combination (including
> NULL) were not also forced to be unique?
The constraint would be satisfied, however cases that the constraint is
satisfied for would not be allowed. The case I gave below is one for
w
"Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Would the constraint not be satisfied if each combination (including
> NULL) were not also forced to be unique?
>
> I maintain that the constraint is still satisfied.
>
> So, it is satisfied if I stuff thousands of NULL values in there.
>
> And it is
tiple null values would not
violate it.
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Tom Lane
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 8:03 AM
To: Greg Stark
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Unique Index
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
them.
-Original Message-
From: Stephan Szabo [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 11:14 AM
To: Dann Corbit
Cc: Tom Lane; Greg Stark; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Unique Index
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
> It is clear to me t
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
> It is clear to me that only allowing a single null value will not
> violate the explanation below.
Given two rows in T with one column each
(NULL), (NULL)
Find two rows such that the value of each column in one row is non-null
and equal to the value of
, January 20, 2005 8:03 AM
To: Greg Stark
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Unique Index
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Not for UNIQUE constraints. SQL92 section 4.10 "Integrity
constraints"
"Frank D. Engel, Jr." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I'm sure this won't work for some reason, but something similar might; why not
> create a unique index on a constant where all three are null; something along
> these lines (in addition to the others):
>
> CREATE UNIQUE INDEX foo_trio_index ON f
On Wed, 2005-01-19 at 22:20, Alex wrote:
>
> Maybe there could be an option in the creation of the index to indicate
> on how to use NULL values.
>
> How do other DBMS handle this?
http://troels.arvin.dk/db/rdbms/
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
I'm sure this won't work for some reason, but something similar might;
why not create a unique index on a constant where all three are null;
something along these lines (in addition to the others):
CREATE UNIQUE INDEX foo_trio_index ON foo (1) WHERE
Dawid Kuroczko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Don't worry about "index bloat". These additional indexes will be used
> only when your main (foo_abc_index) is not used, so there won't be
> any duplicate data in them.
The main index will have _all_ the tuples in them, even where some of the
columns
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Not for UNIQUE constraints. SQL92 section 4.10 "Integrity constraints":
>>
>> A unique constraint is satisfied if and only if no two rows in
>> a table have the same non-null values in the unique columns.
> That's
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> >> Direct your complaints to the ISO SQL standards committee.
>
> > The SQL standard generally treats NULLs as a escape hatch for constraints.
Huh? I thought I was agreeing wi
Tino Wildenhain wrote:
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 19.01.2005, 15:02 -0800 schrieb J. Greenlees:
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-01-20 01:35:32 +1100:
i have a unique index on a table over multiple columns. If now one of
the records has a null value in one of the indexed columns i can
Greg Stark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Direct your complaints to the ISO SQL standards committee.
> The SQL standard generally treats NULLs as a escape hatch for constraints.
Not for UNIQUE constraints. SQL92 section 4.10 "Integrity constraints":
On Thu, Jan 20, 2005 at 04:32:37PM +0900, Michael Glaesemann wrote:
>
> On Jan 20, 2005, at 16:03, David Garamond wrote:
>
> >Dann Corbit wrote:
> >>True, but the standard says nothing about the creation of an index, so
> >>you can make it behave in any way that you see fit.
> >
> >But I thought
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 15:20:26 +1100, Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I actually just wanted to know if there is a way around this problem.
> Obviously it is implemented that way for whatever reason.
Well, if you really need it, partial indexes are your friends! :)
For clarity, let's say you have
I actually just wanted to know if there is a way around this problem.
Obviously it is implemented that way for whatever reason.
I still though think some arguments given in some of the replies, while
probably correct, are besides the point.
Sorry. I was hoping someone else would answer.
I use a
On Jan 20, 2005, at 16:03, David Garamond wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
True, but the standard says nothing about the creation of an index, so
you can make it behave in any way that you see fit.
But I thought we are talking about unique _constraint_ here (which is
certainly regulated by the standard).
Hi,
Am Mittwoch, den 19.01.2005, 15:02 -0800 schrieb J. Greenlees:
> Roman Neuhauser wrote:
> > # [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-01-20 01:35:32 +1100:
> >
> >>i have a unique index on a table over multiple columns. If now one of
> >>the records has a null value in one of the indexed columns i can inse
Dann Corbit wrote:
True, but the standard says nothing about the creation of an index, so
you can make it behave in any way that you see fit.
But I thought we are talking about unique _constraint_ here (which is
certainly regulated by the standard).
--
dave
---(end of broa
Alex <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I actually just wanted to know if there is a way around this problem.
> Obviously
> it is implemented that way for whatever reason.
The way around is to make all the columns NOT NULL. For most applications
unique indexes don't make much sense on nullable column
Tom Lane <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Even at that, I think that being able to insert more than one null value
> > into a unique index should be considered as a bug (or diagnosed as an
> > error).
>
> Direct your complaints to the ISO SQL standard
I actually just wanted to know if there is a way around this problem.
Obviously it is implemented that way for whatever reason.
I still though think some arguments given in some of the replies, while
probably correct, are besides the point.
I use a unique index that may contain null values. On
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Stephan Szabo wrote:
>
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> > True, but the standard says nothing about the creation of an index, so
> > you can make it behave in any way that you see fit.
>
> The unique index is however used to model the unique constraint in
> Postgr
anuary 19, 2005 4:27 PM
> To: Dann Corbit
> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; J. Greenlees; pgsql-general@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Unique Index
>
>
> On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
>
> > Even at that, I think that being able to insert more than one null
>
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Even at that, I think that being able to insert more than one null value
> into a unique index should be considered as a bug (or diagnosed as an
> error).
AFAICT the UNIQUE constraint that it's used to model explicitly allows
multiple NULLs in the spec s
-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Unique Index
"Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or (perhaps better yet, violating trichotomy) ...
> If has a null numeric value, then ALL of the following
are
> FALSE for that case:
> Some_column < 0
>
-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Unique Index
On Wed, 19 Jan 2005, Dann Corbit wrote:
> Even at that, I think that being able to insert more than one null
value
> into a unique index should be considered as a bug (or diagnosed as an
> error).
AFAICT the UNIQUE constraint
"Dann Corbit" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Or (perhaps better yet, violating trichotomy) ...
> If has a null numeric value, then ALL of the following are
> FALSE for that case:
> Some_column < 0
> Some_column > 0
> Some_column = 0
> Some_column <> 0 // This is the one that many find surprising
ndex should be considered as a bug (or diagnosed as an
error).
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, January 19, 2005 3:30 PM
To: J. Greenlees
Cc: pgsql-general@postgresql.org
Subject: Re: [GENERAL] Unique Index
According to Date you should never use NULLs. This is because a NULL can
mean many different things. It can mean not known (e.g. I know he has an
age but I don't know what it is), It can be not applicable (e.g. in a
Party table of organizations and people, people would be of a certain sex
but an or
Roman Neuhauser wrote:
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-01-20 01:35:32 +1100:
i have a unique index on a table over multiple columns. If now one of
the records has a null value in one of the indexed columns i can insert
the same record multiple times.
Is this a problem within postgres or expected?
# [EMAIL PROTECTED] / 2005-01-20 01:35:32 +1100:
> i have a unique index on a table over multiple columns. If now one of
> the records has a null value in one of the indexed columns i can insert
> the same record multiple times.
>
> Is this a problem within postgres or expected?
In SQL, NUL
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005, Alex wrote:
> i have a unique index on a table over multiple columns. If now one of
> the records has a null value in one of the indexed columns i can insert
> the same record multiple times.
>
> Is this a problem within postgres or expected?
Expected. NULLs are effectively
Hi,
i have a unique index on a table over multiple columns. If now one of
the records has a null value in one of the indexed columns i can insert
the same record multiple times.
Is this a problem within postgres or expected?
Example:
index unique, btree (colA, colB, colC);
would still allow me t
Did a pg_dump of a 7.2 DB and am now trying to restore
to 7.4.1. Index creation on a table fails:
db=# CREATE UNIQUE INDEX person_info_username_ix ON
person_info USING btree (username);
ERROR: could not create unique index
DETAIL: Table contains duplicated values.
Of course, this index existed
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003, Thomas LeBlanc wrote:
> Does a Unique Constraint build a unique index?
>
> What is the difference?
None that I know of.
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?
http://archives.post
On Fri, 10 Oct 2003 13:59:38 -0500, "Thomas LeBlanc"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>Does a Unique Constraint build a unique index?
Yes.
>What is the difference?
A constraint is an abstract concept, an index is an implementation
detail.
Servus
Manfred
---(end of broadcast)
Does a Unique Constraint build a unique index?
What is the difference?
Thanks,
Thomas LeBlanc
_
Get a FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
-
81 matches
Mail list logo
