Hi Josh, hi jonah, On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 12:36:12PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote: > > > 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.
Well, I think in one way jona is right, that I mixed up two things. Indeed a max size for a tablespace is something different, than a quota. In my opinion, it makes only sense to use quotas for ressource-owners on ressources, i.e. tablespaces. To as an example I think about some tablespace whith a MAXSIZE of 2 GB (that it won't grow until the disk is full) and a QUOTA of 500 MB for user A on that certain tablespace. In general (of cause this is only my experience in using quotas in dbms) you will create different tablespaces for different object kinds/types i.e. one for indexes, one for dimensions and at least one for the fact data in a dwh. So to allow users to store their comparable tables in the appropriate tablespace you'd set up a quota for them. Regards, Yann ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 1: subscribe and unsubscribe commands go to [EMAIL PROTECTED]