Re: Why Oracle Enforce Name Uniquness ???!!!

From: Serge Rielau <srielau_at_ca.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 04 Nov 2006 17:16:34 -0500
Message-ID: <4r4hq2Fpe3blU1@individual.net>

Galen Boyer wrote:
> On Sat, 04 Nov 2006, damorgan_at_psoug.org wrote:

>> hasta_l3_at_hotmail.com wrote:
>>
>>> However, one could very naturally be led to give the same name
>>> to a table and to a package - ie an "employee" table and the
>>> corresponding "employee" package.
>> CREATE TABLE employee ....
>>
>> CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE employee_util ....
>>
>> A name should have meaning.

>
> Well a view called employee and a table called employee would both have
> precise "meaning" don't ya tink?
>
> Its something that we just deal with.
>

Well, in defense to Oracle. VIEWs, TABLEs and SYNONYMs on those all belong to the class of table-objects. So they must be unique within a schema for that reason.
I kind of by SEQUENCES given the fact that Oracle uses a pseudocolumn notation to refer to them. So allowing SEQUENCEs and TABLE's to overlap could cause confusion.

For a practitioner there is certainly no point in debating limitations. It is what it is.
But on the other hand homo sapiens (to which most posters here belong ;-) is a curious animal....
It certainly is an interesting question why Oracle lumps routines and packages into the same name space with tables. Interestingly I was kind of expecting to see SCHEMA and PACKAGE to share a name space. That would be my choice since both group objects together. :-)

Cheers
Serge

-- 
Serge Rielau
DB2 Solutions Development
IBM Toronto Lab

WAIUG Conference
http://www.iiug.org/waiug/present/Forum2006/Forum2006.html

Received on Sat Nov 04 2006 - 16:16:34 CST