Re: desperate, need oracle help!

[Quoted] This is what I read into it. You saw what you thought was a mistake in the [Quoted] DB, so you did what you were supposed to do, and documented it and passed it [Quoted] upward. To me, it sounds like your boss is the one who screwed up: 1. He didn't follow adequate change procedures (ie, check why something is the way it is)
[Quoted] 2. He took you at your word. (DB's should not be changed on one persons view. The change should be reviewed by at least one person. Can we say DBA meeting?)
[Quoted] 3. He didn't bother to learn the DB himself.

Chill out and remember, your boss is the one on record approving the change, even if you suggested it.

HTH
Jon

[Quoted] "IAC" <"an"underscore"user"_at_"lycos"dot"com"> wrote in message news:ubit1oo0of8h7a_at_corp.supernews.com...
> Okay, so here's my story. It's vague in some places, and I apologize, but
I
> admit I am a little paranoid about our db admin coming across these posts
> and turning me in.
>
>
>
> My job is to run quick ad hoc queries on the information gathered by a
> rather large R&D company. I then summarize what I find, and send it off
to
> the dept that requested it. No problems there. Along the way, however, I
> am supposed to identify quirks, flaws, abnormalities in the database
and/or
> the data itself. Should I find anything, I send a different type of
report
> to my boss stating what I've found and how it should be changed to make my
> life easier. This is where the problem is. Based on my suggestion,
several
> (15-20) rows have been removed, by my superior, from one table and placed
in
> a newly created table, which, for my purposes makes much more sense.
> However, I have come to the realization in the last couple of days that
the
> old way was set up that way for a reason. Come the end of April, there
will
> be an automated inspection of the data, which will now NOT include the
rows
> that have been relocated. These are the rows that need to be reinserted
> into the original table before the end of the month.
>
>
>
> There are others at this corp. who are not exactly thrilled with my status
> (and salary) at a young age and who would jump at the chance to prove me
> incompetent.
>
> the table with the missing rows kinda looks like this: (sorry if something
> doesn't make sense, I'm just trying to provide all the details I can.)
> Primary Key - Integer
> Short Code - text, 5 chars
> Long Code - text 15 chars
> Description - text 40-60 chars
> Owner ID - Integer
> Dept ID - Integer
> Audit ID - Integer
> Entry Date - Date
> Expires - Date
> Rating - number, 0.0 - 9.9
> Process Codes - comma seperated list of Integers
>
> my boss has the ability to remove rows from this main table and also to
> create other tables, but the privelege to add to or modify the main table
is
> the hands of a very select few.
>
> if anybody has any more questions, keep them coming, please. Just the
fact
> that some are willing to take the time to ask gives me a bit of hope.
>
> IAC
>
>
Received on Tue Apr 16 2002 - 10:07:58 CEST