Re: DDL

DA Morgan wrote:
> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>
>> Assuming one actually writes a piece of DDL somewhere, anywhere, then
>> yes it is indeed the last statement in a transaction.
>
>
> I hate to continue to drag this out Howard but why not just acknowledge
> that Richard is correct?

About what, Daniel? About stating that a DDL command doesn't have to end an update to someone's salary? As I say, bleedin' obvious. Meaning that it is bleedin' obvious that Richard is correct to state that.

But whether that was actually what was being asked? I think it rather more probable that what was being asked was "if I do a mix of DML and DDL, why must DDL go at the end".

But probable or not, that means there's a legitimate topic of debate to be had... so don't come the arrogant little twerp trying to pretend there isn't.

> He is! Your assumption was not part of the OP's
> post.

Neither is Richard's and neither is yours. That's the point about assumptions. We don't *know* what was in the OP's mind.

>Of course you are technically correct ... but you have invented
> the condition in which you are correct.

Don't talk complete bollocks, please. I've invented nothing more than you or Richard have. The original question was:

"Why is DDL required to be the last statement in a transaction?"

Richard has interpreted that to mean (I think):

"Why if I am doing DML do I have to issue a piece of DDL to finish it off?"

I took it to mean, "Why does DDL have to be the last statement in a mixed DML/DDL set of SQL statements".

The one "invents" nothing more than the other. It all becomes a question of getting into the mind of a questioner, and having a go at trying to work out what is the more plausible possible meaning.

>>> 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].
>
>
> I think you are stretching.

I think you have no idea what you're talking about, and you ought to shut up. But what I think makes no difference to you, so you can work out what your "thinking" does for me.

>>> 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...
>
>
> And that some invented conditions not written by the OP.

Yawn. You and Richard have done just as much inventing. Repeating a statemennt many times, incidentally, doesn't make it any more meaningful.

  >>> 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.
>
>
> Stretching.

Flailing. See, I can write long words too. But your point was...?

> I agree with the last statement ... but I've not seen the OP post
> again with a clarification so we are all squinting and stretching
> attempting to divine hard facts from an ambiguity. Lets not take
> this any further unless the OP decides to clarify the original
> request.

You don't have to do anything, Daniel, apart from learning how not to write condescending and content-less notes to people whose understanding of many things, not least of which is the English language, is a lot deeper than yours.

Stop being a patronising little git, in other words.

HJR Received on Sat Nov 20 2004 - 21:16:56 CST