Tom Lane wrote:
> "Sergey E. Koposov" <math(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)ru> writes:
>> Per user AND per database (as Tom noted). But I dont see what's odd in
>> it... It exists in Oracle, and I need quotas in the project on which I'm
>> working. And I remember user requests for quotas in the mailing lists ...
> It hasn't ever made it onto the TODO list, which means there's not a
> consensus that we need it. If it were a simple, small, low-impact patch
> then you probably wouldn't need to do much convincing that it's an
> important feature to have, but I'm afraid the patch will be none of
> those things.
Tom what about at just the DB level?
E.g; if user foo then pg_database_size may not be > than X?
I guess the big question would be when do we check though? At each
transaction seems like it would add significant overhead, especially if
we had to rollback the transaction because it was going to go over their
Joshua D. Drake
> regards, tom lane
=== The PostgreSQL Company: Command Prompt, Inc. ===
Sales/Support: +1.503.667.4564 || 24x7/Emergency: +1.800.492.2240
Providing the most comprehensive PostgreSQL solutions since 1997
Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/
In response to
pgsql-hackers by date
|Next:||From: Andrew Dunstan||Date: 2007-02-28 18:09:07|
|Subject: Re: Compilation errors|
|Previous:||From: Tom Lane||Date: 2007-02-28 17:58:04|
|Subject: Re: [HACKERS] |