Re: User Quota Implementation

From: Josh Berkus <josh(at)agliodbs(dot)com>
To: "Jonah H(dot) Harris" <jharris(at)tvi(dot)edu>
Cc: Yann Michel <yann-postgresql(at)spline(dot)de>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: User Quota Implementation
Date: 2005-06-13 19:36:12
Message-ID: 200506131236.12419.josh@agliodbs.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Jonah,

> Don't get me wrong, I think we need tablespace maximums. What I'm
> looking at is a user/group-based quota which would allow a superuser to
> grant say, 2G of space to a user or group. Any object that user owned
> would be included in the space allocation.
>
> So, if the user owns three tablespaces, they can still only have a
> maximum of 2G total. This is where I think it would be wise to allow
> the tablespace owner and/or superuser to set the maximum size of a
> tablespace.

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.

For the basic ISP space, tablespace quotas seem a lot more apt for that
case. You give each user a database, and put it in its own tablespace and
don't give them permissions to change it. That way you could have user
e-mail, web, and database in the same directory tree for easy
backup/transfer. It also means that you can use filesystem controls to
double-check the tablespace maximums.

--
--Josh

Josh Berkus
Aglio Database Solutions
San Francisco

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Andrew - Supernews 2005-06-13 19:48:27 Re: REINDEX SYSTEM tables ... index disappearing ... ?
Previous Message David Siebert 2005-06-13 19:35:25 Re: [GENERAL] pg_dumpall not working?