Re: Query for specific procedure's source code

From: jgar the jorrible <>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2009 13:47:57 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <>

On Mar 1, 3:33 am, Adam Cameron <> wrote:
> > Check out:
> > Summary of DBMS_METADATA Subprograms
> >
> > search for "procedure" on that page...
> Cheers for your response, Michael: I'll look into the link you metioned.  
> >> I'm looking _at_ Oracle 9i at present, but I'd be keen to know about solutions
> >> for other releases too.  Any thoughts _at_ all, really.
> > when posting an issue such as this, it is helpful if you include the
> > full version (ie: 9.2.0.?)
> Like I suggested, I was not after a version specific solution, just wanting
> to know about techniques in general.
> But if we *were* considering just 9i, do you think there's much likelihood
> that the answer to my question would have been any different had I said
> or, for argument's sake?

Well, since you are asking to argue, I'd suggest going to metalink and searching the bug database for dbms_metadata. You may notice a lot of bugs, especially for newish features - one could even argue that dbms_metadata is a newish feature in the early 9 timeframe, so you may run across multiplicative issues using a newish feature on other newish features.. So we can argue endlessly as to whether it is suitable to use dbms_metadata in 9201. The correct answer is, of course, don't use 9201. You'd be amazed at how many people do, and are offended when a volunteer or oracle support says their problem may magically disappear if they patch up.

That said, I think it ought to be ok to ask about techniques in general. It _is_ more difficult to answer such questions though. That's why you might check out asktom for such things, and not feel too abused if any volunteer forum wants more specificity. You might elicit an answer from someone who wants to answer such a question, you might not. You might also get people to speak up as you saw because they have been abused by too many homework or otherwise clueless questions; such is second life.


-- is bogus.
That darn gmail.
Received on Mon Mar 02 2009 - 15:47:57 CST

Original text of this message