Re: Some of my favourite 11g new features

On Aug 18, 3:13 am, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> hjr.pyth..._at_gmail.com wrote:
> > On Aug 17, 5:39 pm, matthias.h..._at_gmail.com wrote:
> >> - Allow Sequences in PL/SQL Expressions
> >> - Browser-Based Enterprise Manager Integrated Interface for LogMiner
> >> - Read-Only Tables (ALTER TABLE ... READ ONLY, works even for the
> >> schema owner)
> >> - RMAN Improved Backup Compression Performance
>
> >> Although I don't see us using 11g in the next 2 years or so, we use a
> >> lot of third-party software and only finished the migration to 10g in
> >> Q1 2007.
>
> >> I guess even 9i will be around for quite some time.
>
> >> Matthias
>
> > Read-only tables that are read-only for the length of time it tales
> > for someone to work out that 'alter table read write' is a valid piece
> > of syntax really gets up my nostrils.
>
> > If you declare something to be read-only, it had better actually be
> > read-only, otherwise the Sarbanes-Oxley crew will be down on you like
> > a tonne of hot bricks.
>
> > The ONLY actual way of making a table read-only is to build it onto a
> > piece of read-only media. End of story. Anything that makes you think
> > its read-only when it's actually not is very, very bad news and not
> > something to be welcomed at all.
>
> > Just my tuppence-worth
> > HJR
>
> Calm down Howard. <g>
>
> CREATE TABLE ro (
> testcol VARCHAR2(20))
>
> ALTER TABLE ro READ ONLY;
>
> conn / as sysdba
>
> CREATE OR REPLACE TRIGGER ro_enforcer
> BEFORE ALTER
> ON DATABASE
> ...
> IF ora_dict_obj_owner = ... THEN
>
> Of course you are correct. But it will be read only for all practical
> purposes.
>
> Of course there is also:
>
> ALTER TABLE ro MODIFY CONSTRAINT pk_ro DISABLE VALIDATE;
>
> That will take them a lot longer to learn how to disentangle.
> --
> Daniel A. Morgan
> University of Washington
> damor..._at_x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
> Puget Sound Oracle Users Groupwww.psoug.org

Bzzztphwttt!

(The sound of a point being missed)

"For all practical purposes" was exactly my point: it's not **actually** read-only, but people will believe it is because, for all practical purposes, it looks like it is. It's the relying on appearances and 'practical purposes' that worries me.

It's why I wrote this article a long time ago: http://www.dizwell.com/prod/node/60

It's why I won't be changing its first lines any time soon.

HJR Received on Fri Aug 17 2007 - 19:53:31 CDT