Re: Pinning packages

"Paul Drake" <paled_at_home.com> wrote in message news:3B4A66B6.418E48DD_at_home.com...
> Frank Hubeny wrote:
>
> > Since Oracle documentation refers to the term "pin", it is reasonable to
> > consider the term "correct".
> >
> > See Designing and Tuning for Performance, Oracle 8.1.6 (a76992.pdf)
 Chapter 13,
> > Managing Shared SQL and PL/SQL Areas, page 380:
> >
> > "To use the DBMS_SHARED_POOL package to pin a SQL or PL/SQL area,
 complete
> > the following steps."
> >
> > Frank Hubeny
> >
> > "Howard J. Rogers" wrote:
> >
> > > First, and just to be pedantic, it's called 'keeping' packages, not
> > > 'pinning' (though since everyone and his dog uses the incorrect term,
 I
> > > guess I'm just fighting a losing battle)...
> > >
>
> Frank,
>
> oh boy.
> Have you seen some of Howard's posts about the Oracle Docs never being
wrong?

No, Paul, I never have... because Oracle Docs are seriously in error at many stages, and I am extremely happy to admit to that.

Let's not start with their claim that SYSTEM can be created as locally managed tablespace. Let's not even consider their claim that 20 extents is the minimum useful for rollback segments. And let's not even entertain the suggestion that in 8i, "use the CACHE clause for frequently used small tables".

Many of my course assessments seem to include comments along the lines of "the instructor pointed out many errors in the documentation". True, true.

The plain fact of the matter is that "pin" refers to things we do to blocks and so forth. "Keep" is the name of the package, and that is what we do to packages with the procedure of the same name. Ask Steve Adams.

Regards
HJR
>
> this will get interesting.
>
> Paul
>
>
Received on Wed Jul 11 2001 - 23:32:44 CDT