Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!postnews.google.com!g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "Ed Prochak" <ed.prochak@magicinterface.com>
Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server
Subject: Re: Where is a temp tables DDL stored?
Date: 19 Sep 2005 11:02:15 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 33
Message-ID: <1127152935.283980.15370@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References: <1126705798.012355.18740@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <1126712247.735544@yasure>
   <1126716382.588532.161250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <bvpgi1d7ntj5keemcfgnjv2hkv8c4n9fg7@4ax.com>
   <1126723858.554220.198110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
   <tlugi15lh587l4ifq86cm4mn2j55tf2dbb@4ax.com>
   <1126729301.961774.27730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>
   <3ot6mnF7lievU1@individual.net>
   <dgc25p$aup$1@nwrdmz02.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com>
   <1126904873.419638.129300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.219.11.162
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1127152940 24703 127.0.0.1 (19 Sep 2005 18:02:20 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 18:02:20 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <1126904873.419638.129300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.0),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
X-HTTP-Via: 1.0 proxy02.ta.com:3128 (squid/2.5.STABLE3)
Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com
Injection-Info: g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=69.219.11.162;
   posting-account=z8J2OwwAAABzrSXAjma7SXOGeLMZZ_s1
Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.oracle.server:251820


mikharakiri_nosp...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Jonathan Lewis wrote:
> > Just playing devil's advocate, but why couldn't
> > the database reverse engineer the corrected
> > DDL from the data dictionary as the dictionary
> > is updated ?
>
> To extend this idea further, I always wondered why the concept of DDL
> is needed at all? Consider
>
> -- create 100 tables TEST1...TEST100
> insert into user_tables -- or, more concervatively, tab$
> as select 'TEST'||rownum table_name, ...
> from dual connect by rownum < 100
>
> insert into user_tab_columns -- or, more concervatively, col$
> ...
>
> commit;

I'd say its the side-effect issue. With the above approach, you insert
into one table and Voila a new table exists.

But also note: using that method you can "create" a table with NO
columns. And what about the other side effects of CREATE TABLE:
allocating space, granting permissions, etc.?

So direct inserts in the Data dictionary table are not a great idea,
even if that is what the DBMS does in the background.

ed