Re: DDL

Richard Foote wrote:
> Hi Howard
>
> This is all getting a bit silly but anyway's, a few final comments embedded.

>>I can re-write the question to indicate what I took the question to mean:
>>"Why *is* DDL the last statement in a transaction" (Answer: It is
>>inevitably so, because it commits).
>
>
> My point in this whole sorry saga is that a DDL is generally *not* the last
> statement in a transaction
>and that your question above is indeed poorly
> written. Example:
>
> update emp
> set sal = 1000
> where id =1234;
>
> commit;
>
> The above is without question a transaction.
>
> The last statement is a COMMIT, not some DDL.

Yes.

> Therefore in answer to *your* question above, "Why *is* DDL the last
> statement in a transaction", the correct answer is that it's not, it's the
> *commit* (or rollback ) that is more commonly the last statement in a
> transaction.

Assuming one actually writes a piece of DDL somewhere, anywhere, then yes it is indeed the last statement in a transaction.

> That's the fuzzy wuzzy picture you haven't been seeing. That's all it is !!

Nothing fuzzy or wuzzy about it. The original question rather predicates   that *some* DDL is being issued, does it not? [See below. I see now that oddly enough for you, it doesn't].

>>What would be the re-write for Daniel and Richard's reading of the
>>question? I can't see one myself, unless it is: "Why does Oracle/the
>>documentation/support/Whoever insist/instruct me to place DDL at the end
>>of my transaction?"
>
>
> Now re-read the OP question , now re-read my initial response, now re-read
> David's post and see how I and others initially interpreted the question.

I wouldn't have asked you to re-write it if I could do that, Richard.

> I guess the question must be a tad ambiguous considering the epic this
> thread's become !!

Not necessarily. It could be that some have leapt to conclusions...

> No, the assumption is that DDL is required to end a transaction when all it
> takes is a commit.

Well, now a semblance of your interpretation appears through the mists at least.

>There is no need for *any* DDL to be in a transaction at
> all. *None*.

I would have thought that anyone who can write about DDL and transactions knows at least enough about Oracle to know that that is one of those statements which falls into the bleedin' obvious category.

> Trouble is we're both right. It's just that you've always assumed there to
> be some DDL involved somewhere along the line. I haven't.

Whatever. I think it bizarre to assume he was asking whether DDL was compulsory when attempting to update EMP's salaries. As opposed to wondering where to place a DDL statement in a mixed bit of SQL.

But yes, that was indeed an assumption I had made.

> I thought it was the end of the matter several posts ago. I haven't
> disagreed with what you've been saying, I've seen your "picture" all the
> time. Hopefully, finally, you'll see mine.

Eventually. Why you couldn't just write it in a sentence, I don't know.

> Please, let this be the end ...

Why? You don't think it important to know what the original poster meant? Or how it is possible to misunderstand, each other and the OP?

HJR Received on Sat Nov 20 2004 - 01:57:00 CST