Josh Berkus <josh@agliodbs.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 ---------------------------(end of broadcast)--------------------------- TIP 3: if posting/reading through Usenet, please send an appropriate subscribe-nomail command to [EMAIL PROTECTED] so that your message can get through to the mailing list cleanly