Path: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu!spool.maxwell.syr.edu!drn.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.comcast.com!news.comcast.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 13:47:37 -0500 Reply-To: "Mark C. Stock" From: "Mark C. Stock" Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server References: <1126705798.012355.18740@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1126712247.735544@yasure> <1126716382.588532.161250@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1126723858.554220.198110@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1126729301.961774.27730@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> <3ot6mnF7lievU1@individual.net> <1126904873.419638.129300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1127152935.283980.15370@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> Subject: Re: Where is a temp tables DDL stored? Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2005 14:47:34 -0400 Organization: Enquery, Incorporated X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2900.2180 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2180 X-RFC2646: Format=Flowed; Original Message-ID: Lines: 43 NNTP-Posting-Host: 68.57.99.188 X-Trace: sv3-nZQ2cd8gr+tDQkStYtK0+CfZYmE7K/k/2BsjuIcOmpZFwIkrJPSg29t7HfvnSpEhk5O3+oY9RWjIPtu!+irL5E+I1hbXBn/lDOmYQ+MKdM7abMSBWAGHRBqEh4Co8SBnwH70LYSAod5NyjQdm0Q+kNEmuucS!yQ== X-Complaints-To: abuse@comcast.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: dmca@comcast.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: dp-news.maxwell.syr.edu comp.databases.oracle.server:251825 "Ed Prochak" wrote in message news:1127152935.283980.15370@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... > > 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 > just consider DDL to be the data dictionary API -- just parsed instead of parameterized ++ mcs