Tom,
You're right, this is going to take more work to make sure all is
perfect. Let me work up a formal definition and send it to the group.
Thanks for bringing me back to my senses.
-Jonah
Tom Lane wrote:
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
If I recall correctly, I never go
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> If I recall correctly, I never got a response. I can still get it done
> quickly and probably before the July 1st feature freeze (if that's still
> the date). Tom, Bruce, Josh, et al what are your thoughts if I submit a
> patch in the next few da
If I recall correctly, I never got a response. I can still get it done
quickly and probably before the July 1st feature freeze (if that's still
the date). Tom, Bruce, Josh, et al what are your thoughts if I submit a
patch in the next few days? Is everyone already too busy reviewing the
curre
Hi again,
On Mon, Jun 13, 2005 at 04:47:20PM -0600, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> Well... a maximum tablespace size would be much easier to implement and
> would still accomplish this level of quota for larger organizations and
> database systems.
>
> I vote for implmenting the maximum tablespace si
Hi folks!
On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 11:39:06AM -0600, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> >>On second thought, we need to have a GUC for this, whether I want it or
> >>not. It needs to be optional to the log, yes? So it would be:
> >>log_tablespace_full = %
> >>with the default being "0" (don't log).
> >
> >
I prefer this option over a GUC.
Josh Berkus wrote:
People,
On second thought, we need to have a GUC for this, whether I want it or
not. It needs to be optional to the log, yes? So it would be:
log_tablespace_full = %
with the default being "0" (don't log).
On third thought, could
People,
> On second thought, we need to have a GUC for this, whether I want it or
> not. It needs to be optional to the log, yes? So it would be:
> log_tablespace_full = %
> with the default being "0" (don't log).
On third thought, could we do this as part of the maximum size declaration?
Lik
Guys,
> >>I'd like to avoid a GUC for "percent_full_warning" if we can. Can
> >> anyone see a way around this? Should we just assume 90% full?
On second thought, we need to have a GUC for this, whether I want it or not.
It needs to be optional to the log, yes? So it would be:
log_tablespace
So, are we going to go with 90% or 95% as the assumed assumption for a
warning :)
Yann Michel wrote:
I'd like to avoid a GUC for "percent_full_warning" if we can. Can anyone
see a way around this? Should we just assume 90% full?
Well, it was only an idea of not leaving the admin out
> I'd like to avoid a GUC for "percent_full_warning" if we can. Can anyone
> see a way around this? Should we just assume 90% full?
Well, it was only an idea of not leaving the admin out in the rain but
giving im a hint by time of what might happen if there was no action. I
have absolutely no
Josh Berkus 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 table
Jonah,
> Was someone going to implement this? If not, I can probably get it done
> in a couple days.
Don't let me stop you.
I'd like to avoid a GUC for "percent_full_warning" if we can. Can anyone
see a way around this? Should we just assume 90% full?
--
--Josh
Josh Berkus
Aglio Database
Well... a maximum tablespace size would be much easier to implement and
would still accomplish this level of quota for larger organizations and
database systems.
I vote for implmenting the maximum tablespace size and revisiting actual
user/group quotas when the need arises.
Was someone going
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
* Josh Berkus (josh@agliodbs.com) wrote:
> Yeah, the problem is that with the upcoming "group ownership" I see
> user-based quotas as being rather difficult to implement unambiguously.
I'm not sure it'd be terribly different with roles than with
user/groups. A role gets a quota, anything which
Jonah,
> 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
Josh,
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 tables
Jonah,
> A quota is significantly different from a maximum size. I was thinking
> more along the lines of the following:
Hmmm. Can you give me a case where we need per-user quotas that would not be
satisfied by tablespace maximums? I'm not understanding the rationale, and
I see several ser
Hi,
On Sat, Jun 11, 2005 at 05:36:34PM +0100, Dave Page wrote:
> >
> > What do we need:
> >
> > - Extension of the "CREATE TABLESPACE" command:
> > CREATE TABLESPACE tablespacename
> > [ OWNER username ]
> > [ SIZE ]
> > LOCATION 'directory'
> >
> > - Extension of
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Yann Michel
> Sent: 11 June 2005 09:49
> To: Josh Berkus
> Cc: pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] User Quota Implementation
>
>
> What do we
Hi Josh,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 02:25:11PM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> > O.K. This makes sens to me. Otherwise I'd like to see quotas per
> > tablespace. As far as I got it, a tablespace may grow in size untile the
> > volume is full. Here a grace quota might be usefull as well. Let's say a
> > 5
I have a patch for user quotas in (I think) 7.4.2. I was going to
update it for 8.x but have been too busy. The discussion (in the past)
was related to whether quotas would be applied to users or groups and
whether it would be on tablespaces (which I think it should).
I can spend some time r
Yann,
> O.K. This makes sens to me. Otherwise I'd like to see quotas per
> tablespace. As far as I got it, a tablespace may grow in size untile the
> volume is full. Here a grace quota might be usefull as well. Let's say a
> 5% threshold like the ext filesystem as an default for generating a
> war
Hi Tom,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 01:37:54PM -0400, Tom Lane wrote:
> Josh Berkus writes:
> > Yeah. I'd prefer per-database quotas, rather than per-user quotas, which
> > seem kind of useless. The hard part is making any transaction which
> > would exceed the per-database quota roll back clean
Hi Josh!
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 10:13:52AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
>
> Yeah. I'd prefer per-database quotas, rather than per-user quotas, which
> seem kind of useless. The hard part is making any transaction which
> would exceed the per-database quota roll back cleanly with a
> comprehen
Josh Berkus writes:
> Yeah. I'd prefer per-database quotas, rather than per-user quotas, which
> seem kind of useless. The hard part is making any transaction which
> would exceed the per-database quota roll back cleanly with a
> comprehensible error message rather than just having the datab
Bruce, Yann,
> Sure. Basically there has not been a lot of interest in this, and we
> are not sure how to implement it without a huge amount of work.
> Considering the other things we are working on, it hasn't been a
> priority, and lots of folks don't like the Oracle approach either.
Yeah. I'd
Yann Michel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 10:59:46AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Well, I have realy a lot of experiences with oracle usage and with its
> > > limitation capabilities. What I need the most is space-limitation per
> > > tablespace. Since 9i there is also a possibilit
Hi,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 10:59:46AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Well, I have realy a lot of experiences with oracle usage and with its
> > limitation capabilities. What I need the most is space-limitation per
> > tablespace. Since 9i there is also a possibility to restrict cpu-usage
> > for
Yann Michel wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 10:07:59AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > Do you think that it is possible that one can generate a TODO item out
> > > of the request or do you rather think different?
> >
> > Yes, sure. Ah, I found it. TODO has now:
> >
> > * Allow limits on
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 10:07:59AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > Do you think that it is possible that one can generate a TODO item out
> > of the request or do you rather think different?
>
> Yes, sure. Ah, I found it. TODO has now:
>
> * Allow limits on per-db/user connections
Fine!
Hi Bruce,
On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 09:45:32AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > did anything happen to implementing quotas, yet?
> > though I did not see anything on the TODO List I was wondering what is
> > going on.
>
> No work has been done on it, and I don't even see a TODO item for it.
Do you
Yann Michel wrote:
> Hi Bruce,
>
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2005 at 09:45:32AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:
> > > did anything happen to implementing quotas, yet?
> > > though I did not see anything on the TODO List I was wondering what is
> > > going on.
> >
> > No work has been done on it, and I don't ev
Yann Michel wrote:
> Hi,
>
> did anything happen to implementing quotas, yet?
> though I did not see anything on the TODO List I was wondering what is
> going on.
No work has been done on it, and I don't even see a TODO item for it.
--
Bruce Momjian| http://candle.pha
Hi,
did anything happen to implementing quotas, yet?
though I did not see anything on the TODO List I was wondering what is
going on.
Regards,
Yann
---(end of broadcast)---
TIP 4: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>> You haven't shown us the patch, have you?
>
> this leads me to the first question I asked... do you want me to pull
> the latest cvs and patch it... or distribute my patch for 7.4.3?
Well, we will not be applying any such patch to 7.4.*, so if you
"Jonah H. Harris" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> this leads me to the first question I asked... do you want me to pull
> the latest cvs and patch it... or distribute my patch for 7.4.3?
Latest CVS, no question. It would be going into 7.6 (or whatever) T
the earliest...
-Doug
---
this leads me to the first question I asked... do you want me to pull
the latest cvs and patch it... or distribute my patch for 7.4.3?
Tom Lane wrote:
[ catching up on this discussion a bit late... ]
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
You haven't shown us the patch, have you?
That was pr
[ catching up on this discussion a bit late... ]
Alvaro Herrera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> You haven't shown us the patch, have you?
That was pretty much the point that leapt out at me. For a change of
this magnitude, there is absolutely zero chance that we'll accept an
implementation sight u
Jonah,
> I have seen some discussion about using OS-level quotas on a user or
> group level, however, like our Oracle system, not all database users
> have a system account. This is why I needed to implement user-specific
> quota functionality within the database itself.
Agreed. Also, imple
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Rod Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Simply setup a tablespace for a given user with permissions to allow
only that user to create new objects within it and make it the default
location) -- tie their schema to their tablespace? -- then set a kernel
level quota on their tabl
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
- Would anyone want to use a group quota in PGSQL (rather than user-only)?
Yes ... I could see this as being more useful, not less ... where you have
a dept working on a database, but individual logins for audit logging ...
- I assume that, based on disc
Stephen Frost wrote:
* Rod Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 11:47, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Klaus Naumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
3. The maximum quota size is (currently) the maximum of int4*1024 bytes.
why is this? This is very li
* Rod Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 11:47, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Klaus Naumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> > > > 3. The maximum quota size is (currently) the maximum of int4*1024 bytes.
> > >
> > > why is this? This
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:22:49AM -0600, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> Quota is currently enforced on commit. I've considered checking during
> insert/update/copy and throwing an abort but within a transaction they
> may be deleting data as well.
How do you do it? Do you add relblocks from all tab
James Robinson wrote:
On Jul 9, 2004, at 12:04 PM, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
- Quota acts on any object owned by the user. Is this adequate for
everyone?
Does changing owner also trigger new quota calculations on both the new
and old owner?
Quota calculations are performed per-owner at commit ti
* Rod Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Group quotas should be sufficient. Create directory readable/writable to
> > > only the pgsql user, but have the group ownership be representative of
> > > the user in question.
> >
> > Rather ugly, and you'll run out of groups if you have alot of user
On Fri, Jul 09, 2004 at 10:04:01AM -0600, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> I'd like to make the following changes... Let me know your thoughts.
>
> - userquota is stored in units of kilobytes... is this adequate? Would
> anyone ever use a quota < 1K other than for allowing a user no space?
> If the u
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Stephen Frost wrote:
Hi,
> > why is this? This is very limiting ...
>
> It's 2TB...
Yeah, you're right. I didn't take into account, that you multiply it with
1kb - my fault.
2TB is enough - at the moment at least. But implementing it in 64 from now
on could save a lot of work
On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 11:47, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Klaus Naumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> > > 3. The maximum quota size is (currently) the maximum of int4*1024 bytes.
> >
> > why is this? This is very limiting ...
>
> It's 2TB...
Okay.. that
On Jul 9, 2004, at 12:04 PM, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
- Quota acts on any object owned by the user. Is this adequate for
everyone?
Does changing owner also trigger new quota calculations on both the new
and old owner?
Is there any additional functionality you would like to see in a quota
implem
Quota is currently enforced on commit. I've considered checking during
insert/update/copy and throwing an abort but within a transaction they
may be deleting data as well.
However, even as a delete may take place before a massive insert/update,
a vacuum cannot be run within a transaction block
> > Group quotas should be sufficient. Create directory readable/writable to
> > only the pgsql user, but have the group ownership be representative of
> > the user in question.
>
> Rather ugly, and you'll run out of groups if you have alot of users (the
> postgres user can only be in so many grou
There are a couple of modifications that I'd still like to make to user
quotas. Because 7.5 is locked, this may be a good time to discuss the
implementation (possibly for 7.6?)
I have seen some discussion about using OS-level quotas on a user or
group level, however, like our Oracle system, no
* Klaus Naumann ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> > 3. The maximum quota size is (currently) the maximum of int4*1024 bytes.
>
> why is this? This is very limiting ...
It's 2TB...
> Using a 64bit value would be a lot more straight foreward.
It sounded to
On Thu, Jul 08, 2004 at 03:27:34PM -0600, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
> Out of necessity, I've implemented user quotas in 7.4.3. What would the
> process be for having this reviewed and combined? I have a patch for
> 7.4.3 ready, but wanted to know if you suggest that I patch the latest
> cvs inst
* Rod Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > > Since the user accessing/writing to the tablespaces would be the
> > > > postgres user I don't really think this 'solution' works in reality.
> > >
> > > I had assumed it would be a directory based quota rather than a user
> > > based one.
> >
> > I
> > > Since the user accessing/writing to the tablespaces would be the
> > > postgres user I don't really think this 'solution' works in reality.
> >
> > I had assumed it would be a directory based quota rather than a user
> > based one.
>
> It's been a while since I played with quotas but I don'
* Rod Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > Simply setup a tablespace for a given user with permissions to allow
> > > only that user to create new objects within it and make it the default
> > > location) -- tie their schema to their tablespace? -- then set a kernel
> > > level quota on their ta
> > Simply setup a tablespace for a given user with permissions to allow
> > only that user to create new objects within it and make it the default
> > location) -- tie their schema to their tablespace? -- then set a kernel
> > level quota on their tablespace.
>
> Since the user accessing/writing
* Rod Taylor ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> I would think having would allow us to take advantage of all of the
> various kernel level filesystem features without needing to implement
> them directly within PostgreSQL (crypto, quotas, data mirror, etc.).
>
> Simply setup a tablespace for a given use
On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 10:14, Rod Taylor wrote:
> On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 09:29, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > * Christopher Kings-Lynne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > > >Personally, I would love to see this in PostgreSQL. It'd be great if it
> > > >could get into 7.5. An issue I see with that is that (s
On Thu, 8 Jul 2004, Jonah H. Harris wrote:
Hi,
> 3. The maximum quota size is (currently) the maximum of int4*1024 bytes.
why is this? This is very limiting ...
Using a 64bit value would be a lot more straight foreward.
Greetings, Klaus
--
Full Name : Klaus Naumann | (http://www.mgnet.d
On Fri, 2004-07-09 at 09:29, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Christopher Kings-Lynne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> > >Personally, I would love to see this in PostgreSQL. It'd be great if it
> > >could get into 7.5. An issue I see with that is that (similar to
> > >Oracle...) I think people would want to
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Christopher Kings-Lynne wrote:
Personally, I would love to see this in PostgreSQL. It'd be great if it
could get into 7.5. An issue I see with that is that (similar to
Oracle...) I think people would want to be able to specify
per-tablespace quotas. Perhaps that wouldn't be t
On Fri, 9 Jul 2004, Stephen Frost wrote:
* Christopher Kings-Lynne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
Personally, I would love to see this in PostgreSQL. It'd be great if it
could get into 7.5. An issue I see with that is that (similar to
Oracle...) I think people would want to be able to specify
per-tab
* Christopher Kings-Lynne ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> >Personally, I would love to see this in PostgreSQL. It'd be great if it
> >could get into 7.5. An issue I see with that is that (similar to
> >Oracle...) I think people would want to be able to specify
> >per-tablespace quotas. Perhaps that
Personally, I would love to see this in PostgreSQL. It'd be great if it
could get into 7.5. An issue I see with that is that (similar to
Oracle...) I think people would want to be able to specify
per-tablespace quotas. Perhaps that wouldn't be too hard to add?
7.5 is already closed for new featu
* Jonah H. Harris ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote:
> Out of necessity, I've implemented user quotas in 7.4.3. What would the
> process be for having this reviewed and combined? I have a patch for
> 7.4.3 ready, but wanted to know if you suggest that I patch the latest
> cvs instead. Below if some i
All,
Out of necessity, I've implemented user quotas in 7.4.3. What would the
process be for having this reviewed and combined? I have a patch for
7.4.3 ready, but wanted to know if you suggest that I patch the latest
cvs instead. Below if some information on the implementation.
=
70 matches
Mail list logo
