From: | Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
---|---|
To: | josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com |
Cc: | "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jharris(at)tvi(dot)edu>, Yann Michel <yann-postgresql(at)spline(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org |
Subject: | Re: User Quota Implementation |
Date: | 2005-06-13 23:50:43 |
Message-ID: | 10290.1118706643@sss.pgh.pa.us |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com> writes:
> Yeah, the problem is that with the upcoming "group ownership" I see
> user-based quotas as being rather difficult to implement unambiguously.
> Even more so when we get "local users" in the future. So I'd only want
> to do it if there was a real-world use case that tablespace quotas
> wouldn't satisfy.
There's also the point that having both user- and tablespace-related
limits would mean (at least) double the implementation overhead, for
a lot less than double the usefulness.
I'm with Josh on this one: I want to see something a lot more convincing
than "it would be nice" or "Oracle has it" before buying into more than
one type of quota.
BTW, I think it is actually impossible to do global per-user limits
within anything approaching the current system structure, because you'd
have no way to know which tables of other databases belong to which
user. Per-tablespace quotas can at least be done by reference to just
the filesystem, without needing inaccessible catalogs of other
databases.
regards, tom lane
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Tom Lane | 2005-06-13 23:58:34 | Re: pg_dumpall not working? |
Previous Message | Josh Berkus | 2005-06-13 23:32:47 | Re: User Quota Implementation |