Re: quotas once again

After reading the thread of 2004 regarding user quotas, I understand
why the discussion moved towards having a tablespace quota as a
solution.

My reason to start this discussion was due the need of controlling
database size. Having tablespace quotas could allow one to create a 
database in a given tablespace and then limit the size of the tablespace.

------------------------------------------------
Gevik Babakhani

PostgreSQL NL       http://www.postgresql.nl
TrueSoftware BV     http://www.truesoftware.nl
------------------------------------------------

> -----Original Message-----
> From: pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org 
> [mailto:pgsql-hackers-owner@postgresql.org] On Behalf Of 
> Jonah H. Harris
> Sent: Thursday, November 29, 2007 3:55 AM
> To: Alvaro Herrera
> Cc: Gevik Babakhani; pgsql-hackers@postgresql.org
> Subject: Re: [HACKERS] quotas once again
> 
> On Nov 28, 2007 8:09 PM, Alvaro Herrera 
> <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org> wrote:
> > Did you publish it in pgsql-patches?  If so, it can be fished from 
> > there.
> 
> Unfortunately, no.  IIRC, I believe the topic moved to being 
> non-user-based quotas and more tablespace-oriented.
> 
> --
> Jonah H. Harris, Sr. Software Architect | phone: 732.331.1324
> EnterpriseDB Corporation                | fax: 732.331.1301
> 499 Thornall Street, 2nd Floor          | 
> jonah.harris@enterprisedb.com
> Edison, NJ 08837                        | http://www.enterprisedb.com/
> 
> ---------------------------(end of 
> broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 2: Don't 'kill -9' the postmaster
>