Re: SOC & user quotas

From: "Joshua D(dot) Drake" <jd(at)commandprompt(dot)com>
To: Martijn van Oosterhout <kleptog(at)svana(dot)org>
Cc: Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us>, "Sergey E(dot) Koposov" <math(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)ru>, pgsql-hackers(at)postgresql(dot)org, Oleg Bartunov <oleg(at)sai(dot)msu(dot)su>
Subject: Re: SOC & user quotas
Date: 2007-02-28 18:50:09
Message-ID: 45E5CEE1.2040105@commandprompt.com
Views: Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-hackers

Martijn van Oosterhout wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 28, 2007 at 09:58:52AM -0800, Joshua D. Drake wrote:
>> 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
>> quota.
>
> Generally, rolling back a transaction doesn't reduce the amount of disk
> used. Only VACUUM FULL actually shrinks relations.

Right, but what I mean was -- if we rollback because we hit quota we
could potentially cause even more maintenance to have to happen (vacuum).

J

>
> Seem to me if the RelationOpen stores a pointer to a counter that gets
> incremented on mdextend, it should work reasonably well. Extending
> doesn't happen that often relative to other database activity.
>
> Have a nice day,

--

=== 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
http://www.commandprompt.com/

Donate to the PostgreSQL Project: http://www.postgresql.org/about/donate
PostgreSQL Replication: http://www.commandprompt.com/products/

In response to

Responses

Browse pgsql-hackers by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message Jonah H. Harris 2007-02-28 19:10:11 Re: COMMIT NOWAIT Performance Option
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2007-02-28 18:39:36 Re: SOC & user quotas