Re: Overloading words: How can we get Oracle to stop it?

Guys, when I see this, I remember a quarrel about the recylebin, when it appeared. Should the dropped tables appear in user_tables or not? how the table in recylebin should be named, .... IMHO, it all comes down to backward compatibility, and how to (or not to) preserve it. In the case of dba_tab_privs, most probably (I cannot check), when it appeared (may be in 7.0), it had only the tables in it. When other objects came along, Oracle had to either add a new table, or use this one. If you use the same, can you change the column names? it will raise an avalanche of requests to revert back as it may break lots of software, if you add a new table, the same software will have to be modified to use this new one, .... The poor guys (probably they're not poor) at Oracle Labs will have a hard time on such things.
As for the initial email about the 'partition' word. Well, it's meaning is adequate in both cases (i.e. table/index partition, and in analytical functions), and I've seen lots of Oracle Clients use both without ever seeing any problem with this 'reuse'. Also, the analytical functions spec were written with IBM's cooperation, so it must have not been easy to choose the words for the different clauses.

just my 2cents

On 6/10/06, Nuno Souto <dbvision_at_iinet.net.au> wrote:
>
> Mark W. Farnham wrote,on my timestamp of 10/06/2006 4:02 AM:
>
> >
> > And yes, I'm tossing in a huge presumption here that anyone else
> > actually cares.
> >
>
> Some of us do. My pet peeve is dba_tab_privs and its columns
> "TABLE_NAME" for a table and a column respectively that store
> *object* names! Ie, suddenly package, type, sequence and
> view names are *table names*????
>
> --
> Cheers
> Nuno Souto
> in sunny Sydney, Australia
> dbvision_at_iinet.net.au
> --
> http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
>
>
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l