I have seen some discussion about using OS-level quotas on a user or group level, however, like our Oracle system, not all database users have a system account. This is why I needed to implement user-specific quota functionality within the database itself.
Also note, my quota implementation currently expects a well-vacuumed database. I always use pg_autovacuum but don't know about most other people.
I'd like to make the following changes... Let me know your thoughts.
- Change userquota from int4 to int8.
- userquota is stored in units of kilobytes... is this adequate? Would anyone ever use a quota < 1K other than for allowing a user no space? If the user has no space, why not just disable the account and/or make them read-only?
- Would anyone want to use a group quota in PGSQL (rather than user-only)?
- I assume that, based on discussion, not everyone sets up auto-vacuuming and therefore I would need to change the way I perform calculations.
- Quota acts on any object owned by the user. Is this adequate for everyone?
- Hard limits vs. soft limits... does anyone think it's a good idea to truncate someone's data? I personally don't think it's a good idea.
- What do you think about userquota being the attribute in pg_shadow... would you rather see something else.
Is there any additional functionality you would like to see in a quota implementation?
Would you rather see ALTER USER SET for quota rather than ALTER USER? Likewise, I had originally used ALTER USER username QUOTA UNLIMITED (in Oracle style) but found that it didn't meet PostgreSQL's common syntax... which is why I changed it to ALTER USER username NOQUOTA... does everyone agree with NOQUOTA over QUOTA UNLIMITED?
-Jonah
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Rod Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
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.
Group quotas should be sufficient. Create directory readable/writable to only the pgsql user, but have the group ownership be representative of the user in question.
Rather ugly, and you'll run out of groups if you have alot of users (the postgres user can only be in so many groups). It's a cute idea but I really don't see it as being viable.
Stephen
-- Jonah H. Harris, UNIX Administrator | phone: 505.224.4814 Albuquerque TVI | fax: 505.224.3014 525 Buena Vista SE | [EMAIL PROTECTED] Albuquerque, New Mexico 87106 | http://w3.tvi.edu/~jharris/
"All great truths begin as blasphemies."
-- George Bernard Shaw
---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 8: explain analyze is your friend
