[SQL] how to store more than 3 MB of character data in Postgres Varchar field
Hi, We have a requirement wherein we have to store around 3 MB of data in Postgres database. We had gone through the postgres website http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/interactive/datatype-character.html#DATATYPE-CHARACTER-SPECIAL-TABLE The above link says "varchar" can store upto 1 GB of data. But when i try to insert using ODBC API's the varchar field takes only 65484 characters.But i could insert more characters using INSERT SQL command. Even in this case when we fetch the data it reads only 65540 characters. Remaining data is not read from the varchar field. We have tried in 2 ways 1. table is created without any limit specified for varchar. create table details (name varchar, data varchar); 2. create table utilntmlscripts (name character varying, data character varying(10485770)); ERROR: length for type 'varchar' cannot exceed 10485760 It's not allowing more than 10 MB of size during table creation. Is there anything needs to be configured to make the varchar field to support upto 1 GB. Even if it does not support 1 GB, can we store & retrieve atleast 10 MB of character data in Varchar field? Please send the details of how this can be acheived. Postgres Version 7.4.2 Accessing using UnixODBC driver from C++ application. thanks, Vadivel. *** FSS-Private *** "DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Flextronics Software Systems Limited (FSS) and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. FSS accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus." ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SQL] How do write a query...
You could have a look at the OFFSET and LIMIT modifiers as for untested example select ((select max( "AValue") from table group by "Num") - "AValue") as difference from table order by "AValue" desc offset 1 this says: give me a inversed ordered AValue-list but ommitting the first (biggest) and subtract each from the biggest value of each group |-Original Message- |From: Alain Reymond [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Sent: Mittwoch, 01. Juni 2005 18:01 |To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org |Subject: [SQL] How do write a query... | | |Hello, | |I have the following problem : | |I have a table like |IdNum Date AValue |1 10 01/01/2005 50 |2 10 31/05/2005 60 |3 25 02/02/2005 55 |4 25 15/03/2005 43 |5 25 28/05/2005 62 |etc.. | |Id is unique, Num is an identification number with duplicates possible, |date is a ... date and Avalue... a value! | |If we have |IdNum Date AValue |Id1 Num1Date1 AValue1 |Id2 Num1Date2 AValue2 | |The table is ordered on Num+Date. |What I would like to calculate is (AValue2-AValue1) for a given Num |(here num1). | |In this case, I would have to calculate |60-50 for Num 10 |and |43-55, 62-43 for Num 25. | |Do you have any idea if it can be done simply with a request... | |I thank you | |Regards. | |Alain Reymond | | | |---(end of |broadcast)--- |TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command |(send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to |[EMAIL PROTECTED]) | ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [SQL] Returning a Cross Tab record set from a function
|-Original Message- |From: Marc Wrubleski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Sent: Mittwoch, 01. Juni 2005 16:15 |To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org |Subject: [SQL] Returning a Cross Tab record set from a function | [...] | |It seems I can do this from any higher level language, but it drives me |crazy that I can't perform this operation as a function inside of |Postgres... Yes, semms very like this can't be done in just sql but needs a higher level lng. Actually Postgres provides such higher languages. Try including PL/Python PL/perl or PL/tk. Fom there you are able to query all the metadata of the wanted tables so that a adequate SQL-string can be generated. In case of sourcecode, you find theses languages in the contrib dir | |Thanks for any thoughts you might have... | |-- |Marc Wrubleski | | |---(end of |broadcast)--- |TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index |scan if your | joining column's datatypes do not match | ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly
Re: [SQL] how to store more than 3 MB of character data in Postgres
Vadivel Subramaniam wrote: Hi, We have a requirement wherein we have to store around 3 MB of data in Postgres database. We had gone through the postgres website http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/interactive/datatype-character.html#DATATYPE-CHARACTER-SPECIAL-TABLE The above link says "varchar" can store upto 1 GB of data. I don't think it does, it says the "longest possible character string" which covers type "text". > But when i try to insert using ODBC API's the varchar field takes only 65484 characters.But i could insert more characters using INSERT SQL command. Even in this case when we fetch the data it reads only 65540 characters. Remaining data is not read from the varchar field. So, your problem is with the ODBC interface rather than actually inserting the data. We have tried in 2 ways 1. table is created without any limit specified for varchar. create table details (name varchar, data varchar); 2. create table utilntmlscripts (name character varying, data character varying(10485770)); ERROR: length for type 'varchar' cannot exceed 10485760 It's not allowing more than 10 MB of size during table creation. Is there anything needs to be configured to make the varchar field to support upto 1 GB. Even if it does not support 1 GB, can we store & retrieve atleast 10 MB of character data in Varchar field? Check your ODBC settings and try type "text" instead of "varchar". I think the problem is with ODBC restrictions rather than anything else. You should be able to get type "text" to map to a "Memo" type or similar, which should hold more than 64k IIRC. Failing that, try internal type "bytea" and large-object on the ODBC end. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [SQL] how to store more than 3 MB of character data in Postgres
Vadivel Subramaniam wrote:
I assume, it could not be a problem with ODBC. I am able to store 2.5 MB of
data into Oracle using the same ODBC APIs.
Well, it certainly isn't to do with PG itself:
$ cat bigtest.pl
#!/usr/bin/perl
print "CREATE TABLE foo (a int, b varchar);\n";
print "INSERT INTO foo VALUES (1, '".('a' x 500)."');\n";
$ perl bigtest.pl | psql -Urichardh richardh
CREATE TABLE
INSERT 3634376 1
$ psql -Urichardh richardh
richardh=> SELECT a,length(b) FROM foo;
a | length
---+-
1 | 500
(1 row)
Only difference is that Oracle supports CLOB datatype, that is mapped to
LONG VARCHAR in ODBC.
The input parameter during insert is bound using the below ODBC API
retStatus = SQLBindParameter(dStmtHandle, 1, SQL_PARAM_INPUT,
SQL_C_CHAR, SQL_LONGVARCHAR, dLen, 1, pData, 0, &dLen);
For PostGres also the same API is used. Here varchar/text at the Postgres
schema is mapped to LONGVARCHAR at ODBC.
We can not go for bytea etc, since the data is in character format.
I tried using "text" also at the postgres schema, still the impact is same
(only stores around 64K).
Could you please provide some example, how the large character data ( more
than 1 MB ) can be inserted to text/varchar (in PostGres) using ODBC?
Hmm - looking back at your original email, I see you're using the
UnixODBC driver. Might be worth trying the PG version:
http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/psqlodbc/genpage.php?downloads
First step though, should be to check whether there are any
configuration settings that apply to longvarchar, because it sounds like
the odbc driver should be mapping to that.
I can't help you with finding those settings, since I have only ever
used the "official" PG driver on Windows.
--
Richard Huxton
Archonet Ltd
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
[SQL] What is faster?
Hi All! What is faster - SLECTion data from one large table (200 000 - 300 000 records), or SELECTion from a few small tables (example, 2 tables 150 000 records each)? Thank You ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [SQL] how to store more than 3 MB of character data in Postgres Varchar field
Vadivel Subramaniam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > 2. create table utilntmlscripts (name character varying, data character > varying(10485770)); > ERROR: length for type 'varchar' cannot exceed 10485760 > It's not allowing more than 10 MB of size during table creation. Use type "text", or equivalently varchar with no length specification. The 1-MB limit on what you can write as a length spec is somewhat arbitrary, but certainly an enforced length spec larger than that would be a completely arbitrary number as well ... regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: [SQL] What is faster?
ON.KG wrote: Hi All! What is faster - SLECTion data from one large table (200 000 - 300 000 records), or SELECTion from a few small tables (example, 2 tables 150 000 records each)? It depends. Are you selecting all records? One record? A few records? If one or a few, do you have a suitable index on the table(s)? Is the table clustered? Expected to be cached in RAM? Do you have a specific problem, or reason to believe you may encounter one? -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [SQL] What is faster?
Hi All! >> What is faster - SLECTion data from one large table (200 000 - 300 000 >> records), or SELECTion from a few small tables (example, 2 tables 150 >> 000 records each)? RH> It depends. Are you selecting all records? One record? A few records? If RH> one or a few, do you have a suitable index on the table(s)? Is the table RH> clustered? Expected to be cached in RAM? RH> Do you have a specific problem, or reason to believe you may encounter one? It's a real problem For example i have two large tables Structure of tables is same - has two fields - id, ip Now i'm using two selection from each in one transaction Each of them selects only one record selection clase like WHERE ip = 'xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx' so it is searches existance of IP in each table tables are clustered about cached in RAM - i'm novice in Postgresql - how does it work? now i need to make much faster as it is possible and have an idea just merge two tables in one - will it help me? Thank You ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [SQL] ARRAY() returning NULL instead of ARRAY[] resp. {}
В Втр, 24/05/2005 в 00:06 -0400, Tom Lane пишет:
> Joe Conway <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Markus Bertheau wrote:
> >> why does SELECT ARRAY(SELECT 1 WHERE FALSE) return NULL instead of
> >> ARRAY[] resp. '{}'?
>
> > Why would you expect an empty array instead of a NULL?
>
> I think he's got a good point, actually. We document the ARRAY-with-
> parens-around-a-SELECT syntax as
>
> The resulting one-dimensional array will have an element for
> each row in the subquery result, with an element type matching
> that of the subquery's output column.
>
> To me, that implies that a subquery result of no rows generates a
> one-dimensional array of no elements, not a null array.
By analogy, array_upper('{}'::TEXT[], 1) should return 0 instead of
NULL.
Markus
--
Markus Bertheau ☭ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [SQL] ARRAY() returning NULL instead of ARRAY[] resp. {}
Markus Bertheau =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=98=AD?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> By analogy, array_upper('{}'::TEXT[], 1) should return 0 instead of
> NULL.
No, that doesn't follow ... we've traditionally considered '{}' to
denote a zero-dimensional array. A 1-D array of no elements is
'[1:0]={}', just as Joe shows ... or at least it would be except
for an overenthusiastic error check:
regression=# select '[1:0]={}' :: int[];
ERROR: upper bound cannot be less than lower bound
I think this should be a legal boundary case. In general, it should be
possible to form zero-size arrays of any number of dimensions.
regards, tom lane
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [SQL] ARRAY() returning NULL instead of ARRAY[] resp. {}
Tom Lane wrote:
Markus Bertheau =?UTF-8?Q?=E2=98=AD?= <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
By analogy, array_upper('{}'::TEXT[], 1) should return 0 instead of
NULL.
No, that doesn't follow ... we've traditionally considered '{}' to
denote a zero-dimensional array. A 1-D array of no elements is
'[1:0]={}', just as Joe shows ... or at least it would be except
for an overenthusiastic error check:
regression=# select '[1:0]={}' :: int[];
ERROR: upper bound cannot be less than lower bound
I think this should be a legal boundary case. In general, it should be
possible to form zero-size arrays of any number of dimensions.
I've been playing with exactly this over the weekend. Of course, as
usual, the devil is in the details. For instance, using the above
notation, how would I specify a zero-element 1D array starting at a
lower bound index of 0? The answer following the above pattern would be:
select '[0:-1]={}'::int[];
You could not use '[0:0]={}'::int[], because that would be a one-element
array. I propose the following instead:
regression=# select '[1:]={}' :: int[];
int4
--
{}
(1 row)
regression=# select array_dims('[1:]={}' :: int[]);
array_dims
[1:]
(1 row)
In other words, an missing upper bound indicates zero elements.
Now the next question; what does a 2D zero-element array look like? I
think this makes sense:
regression=# select '[1:2][1:]={{},{}}'::int[];
int4
--
{}
(1 row)
Except (I think) array_out() should probably output something closer to
the input literal. Any thoughts on this?
Joe
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [SQL] What is faster?
ON.KG wrote: Hi All! What is faster - SLECTion data from one large table (200 000 - 300 000 records), or SELECTion from a few small tables (example, 2 tables 150 000 records each)? RH> It depends. Are you selecting all records? One record? A few records? If RH> one or a few, do you have a suitable index on the table(s)? Is the table RH> clustered? Expected to be cached in RAM? RH> Do you have a specific problem, or reason to believe you may encounter one? It's a real problem For example i have two large tables Structure of tables is same - has two fields - id, ip Now i'm using two selection from each in one transaction Each of them selects only one record selection clase like WHERE ip = 'xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx' so it is searches existance of IP in each table tables are clustered OK - so the tables aren't updated frequently, I assume. Do you have an index on "ip"? about cached in RAM - i'm novice in Postgresql - how does it work? The operating-system will keep frequently used disk-blocks in memory. You don't have to do anything. Have you done any performance tuning in your postgresql.conf file? If not, try reading: http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList now i need to make much faster as it is possible and have an idea just merge two tables in one - will it help me? If they hold the same information, they probably shouldn't have been split in the first place. -- Richard Huxton Archonet Ltd ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ? http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faq
Re: [SQL] How do write a query...
On Wed, Jun 01, 2005 at 18:00:49 +0200, Alain Reymond <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hello, > > I have the following problem : > > I have a table like > IdNum Date AValue > 1 10 01/01/2005 50 > 2 10 31/05/2005 60 > 3 25 02/02/2005 55 > 4 25 15/03/2005 43 > 5 25 28/05/2005 62 > etc.. > > Id is unique, Num is an identification number with duplicates possible, > date is a ... date and Avalue... a value! > > If we have > IdNum Date AValue > Id1 Num1Date1 AValue1 > Id2 Num1Date2 AValue2 > > The table is ordered on Num+Date. > What I would like to calculate is (AValue2-AValue1) for a given Num > (here num1). > > In this case, I would have to calculate > 60-50 for Num 10 > and > 43-55, 62-43 for Num 25. > > Do you have any idea if it can be done simply with a request... I would suggest using a different design. Probably the easiest is to put the start and end dates and values in one record. Otherwise you could write a function or have your application read entries for a particular Num value ordered by date and treat them as pairs. If any intervals overlap then there really isn't a fix. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
[SQL] SQL equivalent to nested loop
Hi, I basically need the SQL equivalent of the following pseudo code: BEGIN FOR v IN SELECT * FROM f(4, 'foo') LOOP FOR w IN SELECT * FROM f(v.id, 'bar') LOOP RETURN NEXT W END LOOP; END LOOP; RETURN; Is that possible in SQL? Markus -- Markus Bertheau ☭ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings
Re: [SQL] SQL equivalent to nested loop
This is basicly a Join, a cross table i.e. select b.w from table a, table b where ... |-Original Message- |From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] |Sent: Montag, 06. Juni 2005 18:53 |To: pgsql-sql@postgresql.org |Subject: [SQL] SQL equivalent to nested loop | | |Hi, | |I basically need the SQL equivalent of the following pseudo code: | |BEGIN |FOR v IN SELECT * FROM f(4, 'foo') LOOP |FOR w IN SELECT * FROM f(v.id, 'bar') LOOP |RETURN NEXT W |END LOOP; |END LOOP; |RETURN; | |Is that possible in SQL? | |Markus | |-- |Markus Bertheau ☭ <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> | | |---(end of |broadcast)--- |TIP 7: don't forget to increase your free space map settings | ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
Re: [SQL] SQL equivalent to nested loop
Dnia 06-06-2005, pon o godzinie 20:08 +0200, KÖPFERL Robert napisał(a): > This is basicly a Join, a cross table > > i.e. > > select b.w from table a, table b where ... You'd hope that. The problem is that you don't have the tables and afterwards specify the join condition, but in specifying the tables (=calling the function) you have the join condition already. I can't figure out the right syntax. What are you proposing? SELECT * from f(4, 'foo') as b, f(b.int, 'bar')? oocms=# select * from object_get_list_of_reference_property(311, 'Themen') as b, object_get_list_of_reference_property(b.object_id, 'Objekte'); ERROR: ?? ? ?? FROM ?? ? ? ?? ?? ? ?? ??? ?? ?? ??? I can't get an english error message atm :/, but that doesn't work. Markus -- Markus Bertheau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
[SQL] preventing deletion of a row
hi i have a table of the type: id serial unique, name varchar(50), fixed boolean default FALSE if the value of 'fixed' is TRUE, then this row cannot be deleted. How do i enforce this condition? -- regards kg http://www.livejournal.com/users/lawgon tally ho! http://avsap.sourceforge.net ಇಂಡ್ಲಿನಕ್ಸ வாழ்க! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
[SQL] datestyle syntax
hi in the query: alter database dbname set datestyle='DMY','European'; what is the significance of the two parameters given in datestyle. I assumed that one is input and the other is output, but if i put: set datestyle='DMY','DMY' i get an error saying 'conflicting datestyles' -- regards kg http://www.livejournal.com/users/lawgon tally ho! http://avsap.sourceforge.net ಇಂಡ್ಲಿನಕ್ಸ வாழ்க! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
Re: [SQL] What is faster?
RH> ON.KG wrote: >> Hi All! >> What is faster - SLECTion data from one large table (200 000 - 300 000 records), or SELECTion from a few small tables (example, 2 tables 150 000 records each)? >> >> For example i have two large tables >> Structure of tables is same - has two fields - id, ip >> >> Now i'm using two selection from each in one transaction >> Each of them selects only one record >> selection clase like WHERE ip = 'xxx.xxx.xxx.xxx' >> so it is searches existance of IP in each table >> >> tables are clustered RH> OK - so the tables aren't updated frequently, I assume. Do you have an RH> index on "ip"? Yes >> about cached in RAM - i'm novice in Postgresql - how does it work? RH> The operating-system will keep frequently used disk-blocks in memory. RH> You don't have to do anything. Have you done any performance tuning in RH> your postgresql.conf file? If not, try reading: RH>http://www.powerpostgresql.com/PerfList Server Administrator says, he did >> now i need to make much faster as it is possible >> and have an idea just merge two tables in one - will it help me? RH> If they hold the same information, they probably shouldn't have been RH> split in the first place. Content of tables is not absolutely same One has one kind of IPs, second - others And there's one more addition in question - if I will merge tables, in new table will be set new additional field - `type` char - to determine type of IP Thank You ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your joining column's datatypes do not match
Re: [SQL] preventing deletion of a row
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote: hi i have a table of the type: id serial unique, name varchar(50), fixed boolean default FALSE if the value of 'fixed' is TRUE, then this row cannot be deleted. How do i enforce this condition? Try this: CREATE RULE tablename_delete AS ON DELETE TO tablename WHERE OLD.fixed = TRUE DO INSTEAD NOTHING; -Nick Johnson ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
[SQL] large object support in PostGres 7.4
Hi, We have API's in /usr/local/pgsql/include/libpq-fe.h which support large objects in PostGres extern int lo_open(PGconn *conn, Oid lobjId, int mode); extern int lo_close(PGconn *conn, int fd); extern int lo_read(PGconn *conn, int fd, char *buf, size_t len); extern int lo_write(PGconn *conn, int fd, char *buf, size_t len); extern int lo_lseek(PGconn *conn, int fd, int offset, int whence); extern Oid lo_creat(PGconn *conn, int mode); extern int lo_tell(PGconn *conn, int fd); extern int lo_unlink(PGconn *conn, Oid lobjId); extern Oid lo_import(PGconn *conn, const char *filename); extern int lo_export(PGconn *conn, Oid lobjId, const char *filename); My doubt is, do these API's operate on character data? i.e., My table schema is like this table (name varchar, script varchar). I have to store a large data(in character form) in the script column (upto 3 MB). As of my understanding the above mentioned API's work on the OID field. i.e,. table(name varchar, script oid). Is that correct? Please clarify this if anyone has already used this large object APIs and specify if this has any limitation on the size? thanks, -Vadivel *** FSS-Private *** "DISCLAIMER: This message is proprietary to Flextronics Software Systems Limited (FSS) and is intended solely for the use of the individual to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information and should not be circulated or used for any purpose other than for what it is intended. If you have received this message in error, please notify the originator immediately. If you are not the intended recipient, you are notified that you are strictly prohibited from using, copying, altering, or disclosing the contents of this message. FSS accepts no responsibility for loss or damage arising from the use of the information transmitted by this email including damage from virus." ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives? http://archives.postgresql.org
Re: [SQL] large object support in PostGres 7.4
Hi, On 6/7/05, Vadivel Subramaniam <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > My doubt is, do these API's operate on character data? i.e., My table > schema is like this > > table (name varchar, script varchar). I have to store a large data(in > character form) in the script column (upto 3 MB). > > As of my understanding the above mentioned API's work on the OID field. > i.e,. table(name varchar, script oid). Is that correct? Yep. Large Objects are stored (and distributed between rows) in a specific table: `pg_largeobject'. You can use these lo records by referencing to their OIDs. Furthermore, you cannot (also shouldn't) reach data on pg_largeobject with another function/routine out of supplied lo_... functions by libpq. > Please clarify this if anyone has already used this large object APIs and > specify if this has any limitation on the size? Yes, there's a limitation about 'em. (2GB) For more information please see: http://www.postgresql.org/docs/7.4/interactive/largeobjects.html Regards. ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
Re: [SQL] preventing deletion of a row
On Tuesday 07 Jun 2005 11:29 am, Nick Johnson wrote: > >if the value of 'fixed' is TRUE, then this row cannot be deleted. > > How do i enforce this condition? > > > > Try this: > CREATE RULE tablename_delete AS ON DELETE TO tablename WHERE > OLD.fixed = TRUE DO INSTEAD NOTHING; cool - thanks -- regards kg http://www.livejournal.com/users/lawgon tally ho! http://avsap.sourceforge.net ಇಂಡ್ಲಿನಕ್ಸ வாழ்க! ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 2: you can get off all lists at once with the unregister command (send "unregister YourEmailAddressHere" to [EMAIL PROTECTED])
