From: | Stephen Frost <sfrost(at)snowman(dot)net> |
---|---|
To: | Rod Taylor <pg(at)rbt(dot)ca> |
Cc: | Christopher Kings-Lynne <chriskl(at)familyhealth(dot)com(dot)au>, "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jharris(at)tvi(dot)edu>, PostgreSQL Development <pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
Subject: | Re: User Quota Implementation |
Date: | 2004-07-09 15:15:35 |
Message-ID: | 20040709151535.GF21419@ns.snowman.net |
Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
Thread: | |
Lists: | pgsql-hackers |
* Rod Taylor (pg(at)rbt(dot)ca) wrote:
> > > Simply setup a tablespace for a given user with permissions to allow
> > > only that user to create new objects within it and make it the default
> > > location) -- tie their schema to their tablespace? -- then set a kernel
> > > level quota on their tablespace.
> >
> > Since the user accessing/writing to the tablespaces would be the
> > postgres user I don't really think this 'solution' works in reality.
>
> I had assumed it would be a directory based quota rather than a user
> based one.
It's been a while since I played with quotas but I don't recall this
option being available.
> > > Or do we expect a PostgreSQL implementation to do more than that, to
> > > only count active data by ignoring data pending a vacuum?
> >
> > Certainly, it should.
>
> Okay. But just so we all know that this means the user with a 5MB quota
> could still (potentially) fill 1TB of physical diskspace.
Hmm, interesting point. What are the options? Make sure the user
understands they have to vacuum their tables in order to regain the
space? Have two seperate values (similar to soft vs. hard limits) that
the admin sets? Either (or both) of those seem reasonable to me.
Stephen
From | Date | Subject | |
---|---|---|---|
Next Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-07-09 15:25:15 | Re: User Quota Implementation |
Previous Message | Rod Taylor | 2004-07-09 15:12:21 | Re: User Quota Implementation |