On Thu, 1 Mar 2007, Tom Lane wrote:

"Sergey E. Koposov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
I still  don't understand how FS quotas can help with DB quotas. ..
All the FS quotas are setup for limiting  the space for specific user and
specific mount point. AFAIK They do not allow to limit the space in one
directory. And since all the PG tablespaces will be owned by postgres
user, I dont think the FS quotas can do the job.

Well, you have to put the tablespace on a mount point that's not
otherwise used by Postgres, but beyond that I don't see the problem.

And if you have 5-10 users which should be under quota , you need 5-10
different mount points. From my humble opinion that's an absolutely crazy solution and nobody will ever do that.

The point here is not that it's amazingly simple or convenient to use;
obviously it isn't.  The point is that it's *possible* to get this sort
of effect today, and so we have to ask whether it's really worth a good
deal of development effort and code complexity to provide somewhat
more convenient, but basically duplicate, functionality within Postgres.

Yes, I completely agree that it's up to the comunity to decide whether the feature is worth the complexity of its development, but I don't agree that's a duplication of existing functionality. IMHO.


Sergey E. Koposov
Max Planck Institute for Astronomy/Cambridge Institute for Astronomy/Sternberg 
Astronomical Institute
Tel: +49-6221-528-349
Web: http://lnfm1.sai.msu.ru/~math

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 3: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?


Reply via email to