at the remote system has the same users or
groups or permission setup.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
irectories.
You'll note that initdb does not behave the way you describe. It's not
unreasonable behavior, but it's not the way it currently works.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2019-03-11 12:57, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-02-06 23:15, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> On 05/02/2019 17:20, Tom Lane wrote:
>>> What I *don't* like about the proposed patch is that it installs a
>>> new, different comparison rule for the ON UPDATE CASCADE ca
ich seems inappropriate (better to make the legacy case
follow the new case, not the other way around). I'm fine with the
comment tweaks that you made that are not related to
_bt_findsplitloc(), though.
I won't push the patches today, to give you the opportunity to
respond. I am not at all convinced right now, though.
--
Peter Geoghegan
work.
Also, once you start such a list, there will be an expectation that it's
complete. So that would need to be ensured. You only list a few things
you found. Are there others? How do we keep this up to date?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Develo
th 100 tables, or do you need 10?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
on could be perfectly acceptable.
There are two commit fest entries for this thread, one in Pierre's name
and one in yours. Is your entry for the error message redacting
functionality? I think that approach has been found not to actually
satisfy the leakproofness criteria.
--
. No new tuple can be equal to negative infinity, and
negative infinity appears in every pivot tuple. There is a place for
everything, and everything is in its place.
[1] https://www.commandprompt.com/blog/postgres_autovacuum_bloat_tpc-c/
[2] https://postgr.es/m/bf3b6f54-68c3-417a-bfab-fb4d66f2b...@postgrespro.ru
--
Peter Geoghegan
ssibly
conflicting. gcov shows that that never happens with the regression
tests once the patch is applied (you can at least get away with only
having one buffer lock on a leaf page at all times in practically all
cases).
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 5:12 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Smarter choices on page splits pay off with higher client counts
> because they reduce contention at likely hot points. It's kind of
> crazy that the code in _bt_check_unique() sometimes has to move right,
> while hol
On 2019-02-08 04:04, Kyotaro HORIGUCHI wrote:
> Hi, I got redirected here by a kind suggestion by Tom.
I have committed my patch, which also addresses the issue you had in
your other thread.
I rest of these discussions have merit but are not really dependent on
my patch.
--
Peter Eisentr
On 2019-02-18 16:42, Andres Freund wrote:
> On February 18, 2019 7:39:25 AM PST, Peter Eisentraut
> wrote:
>> I propose to add an equivalent to unconstify() for volatile. When
>> working on this, I picked the name unvolatize() mostly as a joke, but
>> it
>> ap
at best,
> a hangover from before it got into core. Even if you don't want to
> remove the option, we could surely provide a useful default setting
> based on find_my_exec.
Previously discussed here:
https://www.postgresql.org/message-id/flat/1304710184.28821.9.camel%40vanquo.
of the second
patch, but it seems OK in principle. Performance tests from others welcome.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Mon, Mar 18, 2019 at 10:17 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> The big difference is that you make the possible call to
> _bt_stepright() conditional on this being a checkingunique index --
> the duplicate code is indented in that branch of _bt_findsplitloc().
> Whereas I break early in t
On 2019-03-15 22:32, Michael Banck wrote:
> I had a quick look at some of the comments and noticed some possible
> nitpicky-level problems:
Thanks, I've integrated these changes into my local branch.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Develo
to me; note
> that initdb does seem to chdir() an existing directory.
I think that would have been my preference, but PG11 is already shipping
with the current behavior, so I'm not sure whether that should be changed.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
ents of the src
> directory
> (with no group access) even for the root directory.
I'm OK with that. Perhaps a positive option --allow-group-access would
also be useful.
Let's make sure the behavior of these options is aligned with initdb.
And write tests for each variant.
-
On Tue, Mar 19, 2019 at 4:15 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Heikki and I discussed this issue privately, over IM, and reached
> final agreement on remaining loose ends. I'm going to use his code for
> _bt_findsplitloc(). Plan to push a final version of the first four
> patches tom
in favor of defaulting --new-bindir appropriately. It seems
silly not to. We know where the directory is, we don't have to ask anyone.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
e same
> rebasing stuff. The new patch is attached to this mail.
As I said previously in this thread, this patch needs some fundamental
design work. I don't think it's worth doing a code review on the patch
as it is.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Post
On 2019-03-18 00:19, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-03-11 21:36, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
>> Patches here. This will allow all the existing collation customization
>> options as well as the ones being proposed in this thread to work in
>> older ICU versions.
>
> T
that's the default.
> - "none" enforces the default 0700/0600.
> - "group" enforces group read access.
Yes, we could use those three behaviors.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2019-03-21 19:01, David Steele wrote:
> What do you think, Peter? Is the extra test valuable or will it cause
> unpredictable outputs as Tom and Michael predict?
Yes, I'm OK with that.
But now that I read the patch again, I'm not sure why this needs to
touch libpq. The for
allow having different owners on
different partitions, but that seems to be a separate discussion.
In general, it seems sensible that if you operate on a partitioned
table, the whole partition hierarchy is affected unless told otherwise.
There may be sensible exceptions, but it seems usef
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 10:28 AM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I've committed the first 4 patches. Many thanks to Heikki for his very
> valuable help! Thanks also to the other reviewers.
>
> I'll likely push the remaining two patches on Sunday or Monday.
I noticed that if I
d.
Seems like there might be a problem either caused by or detected by
016_min_consistency.pl on piculet:
https://buildfarm.postgresql.org/cgi-bin/show_log.pl?nm=piculet&dt=2019-03-23%2022%3A28%3A59
--
Peter Geoghegan
o mirror the names of the SQL commands.
> Doc looks clear to me. ISTM "chain" should be added as an index term?
Added, good idea.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
So perhaps push the check down to GetRelationPublicationActions()
instead. That way we don't have to patch up two places and everything
"just works" even for possible other callers. See attached patch.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL De
quot;Waiting on Author" since March 8th. Do you know when
>> you'll have a new version ready?
>
> Here is a new revision that blank-pads "ok" to the length of "FAILED".
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2019-03-19 16:38, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-03-19 10:21, Tsunakawa, Takayuki wrote:
>> From: Tsunakawa, Takayuki [mailto:tsunakawa.ta...@jp.fujitsu.com]
>>> Fixed.
>>
>> Rebased on HEAD.
>
> I have committed the first patch that reorganizes the str
raintdef(oid, true) AS condef
(as in the other branch).
A test case for the incoming foreign key display would be nice, as that
was the original argument for the patch.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2019-03-26 03:42, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Patch tester didn't like that one bit. Here's v10 with the fixup
> applied.
Looks good to me.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
e, use vacuumdb, perhaps with an
appropriate --jobs option. Note that pg_upgrade --jobs and vacuumdb
--jobs are resource-bound in different ways, so the same value might not
be appropriate for both.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Suppo
t to fail hard. Perhaps that needs to be
taken into account, without being indulged.
--
Peter Geoghegan
f
generic things that you we could do that can verify that almost any
type of initialized page is at least somewhat sane. For example, you
can verify that line pointers indicate that tuples are
non-overlapping.
That said, Andres' approach sounds like the way to go to me.
--
Peter Geoghegan
.
However, we do know that we are very bad at actually getting rid of
deprecated things.
How about we compromise in this thread and remove postmaster and leave
everything else as is. ;-)
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
be
it's not quite that simple.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
page()
for GiST, so that we're always operating on a copy of the page in
palloc()'d memory. Maybe it's worthwhile to do something clever with
concurrently holding buffer locks, but if that's what we're doing here
then I would also expect us to have something weaker than ShareLock as
our relation-level heavyweight lock. And, there should be a prominent
explanation of the theory behind it somewhere.
> What have you been using to test this?
pg_hexedit has full support for GiST. ;-)
--
Peter Geoghegan
d than just retrying. This is
different from some of the other cases that were cited, such as
serialization conflicts, where you just got unlucky due to concurrent
events. In the case of idle-in-transaction-timeout, the fault is
entirely your own.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.
What is the purpose of this patch (hint: commit message)? The email
subject is "show size of partitioned table", which seems reasonable, but
looking briefly at a patch, it adds new psql commands to display
partitioned tables only. I don't understand the purpose of that.
knobs anyway, and can as well choose to
> disable them manually, instead of having everyone else have to enable
> them manually. Also, disabling is much easier than enabling.
It would also enable pg_rewind to work by default.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Post
x27;s probably not possible to create a useful visualization/syntax
diagram with Bison's --graph option, but it might at least be an
interesting starting point.
I don't think that it's necessary to discuss this now. This can be a
placeholder thread that we may come back to when we're
onsistency between the
syntax diagrams in psql if we go this way, though. Not sure what to do
about that.
--
Peter Geoghegan
ope with same problem twice:
> v3 of the patch used AccessShareLock and many locks with incorrect order.
> We could use one of possible solutions: either use ShareLock, or rewrite scan
> to correct locking order.
> But patches v4-v7 use both.
It definitely has to be one or the other. The combination makes no sense.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On 2019-03-28 09:07, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
> Unfortunately patch does not apply due recent commits. Any chance this can be
> fixed (and even committed in pg12)?
Committed :)
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Tr
alive this patch over the ages, with particular thanks to Andreas and
> Peter.
So, we're getting buildfarm failures, only with clang. I can reproduce
those (with clang).
It seems the issue is somewhere near indexcmds.c "Phase 6 of REINDEX
CONCURRENTLY". More eyes welcom
can't copy paste, and I /will/ mistype some part of that
> at least twice.
I doubt that we would remove the current textual synopses. The graphics
would just be an addition.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
but I tend to think that this would not be a good
task for a "technical writer". It's either an automation task or
busywork transcribing the syntax to whatever new intermediate format.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2019-03-29 09:13, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> On 2019-03-29 09:04, Michael Paquier wrote:
>> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 10:39:23AM +0300, Sergei Kornilov wrote:
>>> wow! Congratulations! This was very long way
>>>
>>> my favorite pg12 feature
>>
>> So
effects from the patch before. I'll post a new version
>> shortly to see if anyone has objections.
> Here's a new version of the patch.
I like the way the documentation is written in this patch version.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL
On 2019-03-28 17:46, Alvaro Herrera wrote:
> Thanks, Michael and Peter, for responding; however there is a second
> part to the question, which is "should I change the recursivity of
> REPLICA IDENTITY, while not simultaneously changing the recusivity of
> the TABLESPACE and
eaning of moving
a partitioned table to a different tablespace without recursing?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
m pg_upgrade, or
make some other arrangement?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
are free to change the permissions
at any time. Many of the proposed solutions sound excessively
complicated relative to that.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
files in the accumulated WAL that have not been
fsynced. Perhaps a hard exit would be more appropriate?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
to call that scenario, but I would feel more
comfortable having these basic tools available in a bind.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2019-03-29 11:27, David Steele wrote:
>> I'll revise the patch if Peter thinks this approach looks reasonable.
>
> Hopefully Peter's silence can be interpreted as consent. Probably just
> busy, though.
>
> I used your suggestions with minor editing. After s
On 2019-03-08 15:38, Chapman Flack wrote:
> Perhaps:
>
> o For an internal link, use if you will supply text, else
> o For an external link, use with or without link text
I have pushed an update to this effect.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com
investigated what
became of that work and what the problems were getting it to a working
state.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
so a backpatch would
have to rephrase the message.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
viously not impossible. But to make it actually painful you need a
> workload where the implied randomness of accesses isn't already a major
> bottleneck - and that's hard.
There is also the fact that in many cases you'll just have accessed
the same buffers from within _bt_check_unique() anyway.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On 2019-03-29 16:53, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
> I noticed a very small typo in the documentation for this feature.
fixed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2019-03-29 17:01, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 29, 2019 at 03:53:05PM +, Bossart, Nathan wrote:
>> I noticed a very small typo in the documentation for this feature.
>
> I submit a bunch more changes for consideration, attached.
fixed, thanks
--
Peter Eisentraut
On 2019-03-26 20:50, Pavel Stehule wrote:
> It is great feature and I'll mark this feature as ready for commit
Committed, thanks.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
was that we didn't move all
dependencies from the index (only in the other direction). Maybe that
was sufficient when the patch was originally written, before partitioned
indexes.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Developme
On 2019-03-29 16:41, Tom Lane wrote:
> Or perhaps better, allow pg_ctl to grow new
> subcommands for those tasks?
pg_ctl is a tool to control the server; the commands being complained
about are client-side things.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Post
On 2019-03-29 20:32, Joe Conway wrote:
> pg_util
How is that better than just renaming to pg_$oldname?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
users. In reality, it depends entirely
on the situation at hand.
--
Peter Geoghegan
will be stored on disk. default.
> +
>
> What does "default." mean ?
Typo, fixed.
> Also, this is working but not documented as valid:
> postgres=# CREATE TABLE t (j int, i int GENERATED BY DEFAULT AS (j*j+1)
> STORED);
Fixed.
--
Peter Eisentraut
cannot be used in COPY."
>
> Maybe it'd be possible to get an error earlier, i.e., while trying to
> create such a useless column?
I'll look into it.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
eakage within the dev branch, but I don't know
> how we do it.
We don't.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
caught up with all the refactoring going on. I'll look through your
proposal and update the code.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
than the
equivalent trigger.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2019-04-01 20:31, Andres Freund wrote:
> I'm unhappy about this being committed. I don't think there was
> terribly much buyin for this amount of duplicated infrastructure.
What duplicated infrastructure?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
Postgr
On Mon, Apr 1, 2019 at 4:31 AM Christian Ullrich wrote:
> It does look very similar. I don't have a working gdb on the box, hence
> this is from lldb.
>
> (lldb) bt
I am almost certain that it's the same issue, based on this stack trace.
--
Peter Geoghegan
know what the data it is dealing with is used for.
That should be the responsibility of the caller, no?
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
y
property.) The other way around it is easier.
Also, the "s" family of functions appears to be a quagmire of
controversy and incompatibility, so it's perhaps better to stay away
from it for the time being.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On 2019-07-09 11:43, Peter Eisentraut wrote:
> After further research I'm thinking about dropping the libunwind
> support. The backtrace()/backtrace_symbols() API is more widely
> available: darwin, freebsd, linux, netbsd, openbsd (via port), solaris,
> and of course it&#x
round old syntax forever.
> If it is to be generated, I'd do merge the two conditions instead of
> nesting.
>
>if (strlen(collate) > 0 && strcmp(collate, ctype) == 0)
> // generate LOCALE
done
How about this patch?
--
Peter Eisentraut ht
ight fix. It's what the in-tree test drivers
(pg_regress, PostgresNode.pm) do.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
o check whether a string is empty,
> but this is pre-existing.
>
> I switched the patch to READY.
committed
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
uot; etc. are
from the SQL standard text, but they should be explained somewhere for
the readers of the code.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Fri, Jul 19, 2019 at 7:24 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Hmm. So, the attached test case fails amcheck verification for me with
> the latest version of the patch:
Attached is a revised version of your v2 that fixes this issue -- I'll
call this v3. In general, my goal for the revision
y reason to think that it's much different to what you've done with GiST?
--
Peter Geoghegan
;s
not likely to make a huge difference for most real world workloads.
OTOH, perhaps the risk is so low that we might as well target
backbranches.
How do you feel about it?
--
Peter Geoghegan
On 2019-07-24 16:00, Andrew Dunstan wrote:
> I think we also need to change vcregress.pl to use trust explicitly for
> upgrade checks, just like the Unix upgrade test script does. That should
> help to future-proof us a bit.
Right, I'll add that to my patch.
--
Pe
k we could just define that if geteuid == getpeereid, then
authentication succeeds. Possibly make that a setting if someone wants
to turn it off.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
cases like
dealing with trailing spaces are probably acceptable as slight
incompatibilities or extensions.
We should collect a list of test cases that illustrate the differences
and then work out how to deal with them.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
ou from calling --help. Also, in this case, it would probably
very often exceed the typical line length of --help output and create
some general ugliness. Writing something like "(default: same as this
pg_upgrade)" would probably achieve just about the same.
--
Peter Eisentrau
r" complaints.
Well, the existence of "local" vs. "host" already has that effect anyway.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
On Tue, Jul 23, 2019 at 6:22 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> Attached is a revised version of your v2 that fixes this issue -- I'll
> call this v3.
Remember that index that I said was 5.5x smaller with the patch
applied, following retail insertions (a single big INSERT ... SELECT
...)?
> tuple locking - which makes sense, there was no cases where locks would
> need to be carried forward.
I agree that this is unfortunate. Are you planning on working on it?
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Wed, Jul 24, 2019 at 3:06 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> There seems to be a kind of "synergy" between the nbtsplitloc.c
> handling of pages that have lots of duplicates and posting list
> compression. It seems as if the former mechanism "sets up the bowling
> pins&q
l, but that's the easy part.
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Thu, Jul 25, 2019 at 6:37 PM Bruce Momjian wrote:
> Attached patch applied, thanks.
Thanks Bruce,
--
Peter Geoghegan
On Fri, Feb 8, 2019 at 11:13 PM Edmund Horner wrote:
> I have some comments on the comments:
Seems reasonable to me.
Where are we on this? I'd like to get the patch committed soon.
--
Peter Geoghegan
k in, the PDF build breaks. If you want to
work out why, feel free to submit more patches. Otherwise I'm happy to
leave it as is now; it's very useful.
--
Peter Eisentraut http://www.2ndQuadrant.com/
PostgreSQL Development, 24x7 Support, Remote DBA, Training & Services
rules about how the
underlying types sort), or seemed to discuss things that were better
discussed next to the relevant network_abbrev_convert() code.
Thoughts?
--
Peter Geoghegan
v3-0001-Add-sort-support-for-inet-cidr-opfamily.patch
Description: Binary data
On Fri, Jul 26, 2019 at 6:58 PM Peter Geoghegan wrote:
> I found this part of your approach confusing:
>
> > + /*
> > +* Number of bits in subnet. e.g. An IPv4 that's /24 is 32 - 24 = 8.
> > +*
> > +* However, only some of the bits ma
1801 - 1900 of 10770 matches
Mail list logo
