Re: Difference between PUBLIC and "PUBLIC"

v$session is a synonym for either (I always forget) v$_session or v_$session.
You could have verified this of course by a select object_type from dba_objects where object_name = 'v$session' You need to grant select privilege on the underlying view not on the synonym.

BTW you are aware both 8.0.4 and 8.1.5 have been desupported?

Hth,

Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA

"Atta ur-Rehman" <atta707_at_my-deja.com> wrote in message news:93eagh$2dd$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com...
> Dear all,
>
> please consider this:
>
> when I try to grant select priv on v$session without qualifying it with
> the owner it generates ORA-02030 which SOUNDS out of context. Could you
> please explain the reasons for this error.
>
> SQLWKS> grant select on v$session to aces;
> grant select on v$session to aces
> *
> ORA-02030: can only select from fixed tables/views
>
>
> when i qualify the v$session with the owner public (in lower case):
> SQLWKS> grant select on public.v$session to aces;
> grant select on public.v$session to aces
> *
> ORA-00903: invalid table name
>
> That is oracle is unable to resolve the owner (in lower case). then i
> try to qualify the view with owner in upper case:
>
> SQLWKS> grant select on PUBLIC.v$session to aces;
> grant select on PUBLIC.v$session to aces
> *
> ORA-00903: invalid table name
>
> that doesn't work either.
>
> but the moment I enclose the owner, public, in double quotes it works:
>
> SQLWKS> grant select on "PUBLIC".v$session to aces;
> Statement processed.
>
> I know that the double quotes are used to preserve the oracle objects'
> names' case. but then isn't it true the becuase oracle by default,
> without double quotes, converts the object name to UPPER case; so
> PUBLIC and "PUBLIC" *should* be the same?
>
> any thoughts on above behavior would be greatly apprecaited. I'm using
> Oracle 8.0.4 on NT 4 and i've tried the same thing on 8.1.5 on NT with
> exactly the same results.
>
> Thanks in anticipation.
>
>
> regards,
>
> ATTA
> --
>
> getting the meanin' of data...
>
>
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
Received on Tue Jan 09 2001 - 00:56:08 CST