Re: identifier is too long

From: <TESTAJ3_at_nationwide.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Dec 2008 14:34:11 -0500
Message-ID: <OFE95CE57E.43C6A63D-ON85257515.006B7A9C-85257515.006B5D18@lnotes-gw.ent.nwie.net>


its that crazy database link thing :)

joe



Joe Testa, Oracle Certified Professional Senior Consultant
Data Engineering and Administration
Nationwide Investments

(Work) 614-677-1668
(Cell) 614-312-6715

Interested in helping out your marriage? Ask me about "Weekend to Remember"
Dec 12-14, 2008 here in Columbus.

From:
"Jared Still" <jkstill_at_gmail.com>
To:
toon_at_rulegen.com
Cc:
jose.soares_at_sferacarta.com, oracle-l_at_freelists.org Date:
12/04/2008 02:31 PM
Subject:
Re: identifier is too long
Sent by:
oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org

On Thu, Dec 4, 2008 at 5:35 AM, Toon Koppelaars <toon_at_rulegen.com> wrote: No not possible.

And two days ago at UKOUG Steve Feuerstein told us that Oracle had told him that this limit will never be changed.

Never is a very long time.

It also seems to be at odds with the size of the name column in dba_objects.
Though the max length of any name in the db is 30 character, the potential

for more appears in the DD.

PRODUCT                        VERSION              STATUS
------------------------------ -------------------- --------------------
NLSRTL                         9.2.0.8.0            Production
Oracle9i Enterprise Edition    9.2.0.8.0            Production
PL/SQL                         9.2.0.8.0            Production
TNS for Linux:                 9.2.0.8.0            Production

Data Base



DV10.RADISYS.COM STARTUP

10/01/2008 09:42:19

11:26:22 ordevdb01.radisys.com - js001292_at_dv10 SQL> desc dba_objects

 Name                                                  Null?    Type
 ----------------------------------------------------- -------- 
------------------------------------

 OWNER VARCHAR2(30)
 OBJECT_NAME VARCHAR2(128)
 SUBOBJECT_NAME VARCHAR2(30)
 OBJECT_ID                                                      NUMBER



--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Thu Dec 04 2008 - 13:34:11 CST

Original text of this message