Re: extra rows in USER_DEPENDENCIES

"Andy Hassall" <andy_at_andyh.co.uk> wrote in message news:7vqja19mqa90dglunepgfls48mpar0gbo5_at_4ax.com...
> On Fri, 10 Jun 2005 15:24:37 -0400, "Mark C. Stock" <mcstockX_at_Xenquery
> .com>
> wrote:
>
>>Anybody ever run across apparently extra rows in USER_DEPENDENCIES?
>>
>>Specifically, I'm seeing a table in the REFERENCED_NAME column for a
>>stand-alone procedure that does not directly reference the table (or use
>>it
>>in a %TYPE or %ROWTYPE reference)
>>
>>Is oracle recording indirect references? There don't seem to be any views
>>dependent on the table that are referenced in the proc, but it does
>>reference package variables that are defined with a %ROWTYPE -- could that
>>be the dependency oracle is recording?
>>
>>Version:
>>
>>Oracle9i Enterprise Edition Release 9.0.1.4.0 - 64bit Production; HP-UX
>
> There's a recent post on .misc with a similar issue, except that's
> transitive
> dependencies for a view against a function (called indirectly through
> other
> views) showing up as a direct dependency for the view:
>
> Subject: dba_dependencies "extra" rows?
> Message-ID: <1118199382.658230.302250_at_g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
>
> --
> Andy Hassall / <andy@andyh.co.uk> / <http://www.andyh.co.uk>
> <http://www.andyhsoftware.co.uk/space> Space: disk usage analysis tool

thanks. Received on Fri Jun 10 2005 - 15:14:01 CDT