Re: Can a Table be Invalidated?

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_psoug.org>
Date: Sun, 17 Jul 2005 16:03:05 -0700
Message-ID: <1121641394.860590@yasure>

Jim Smith wrote:

>> Thus when something is easily proven by trial or reading I always try
>> to point in that direction.

>
> But you are not teaching at a university level. You are taking part in a
> cooperative discussion group. You seem to assume that everything posted
> is some business critical piece of research. I was just joining in a
> conversation with what seemed a reasonable question. I don't use object
> types so I haven't read those bits of the manual closely (or at all in
> some cases)

Actually ... this is the usenet meaning it is whatever people choose to make it ... and the only reason I am here is to continue my first love which is teaching. So, in a sense, this is to me an extension of the lecture hall.

Look on the bright side ... someone could have just said RTFM: And been well within their rights.

>> My point remains that if you think it is possible to attach some form
>> of PL/SQL to a table in such a manner that it might become invalid and
>> thus invalidate the table ... that you do it. Because I can think of
>> no possible scenarios other than the three I showed you.
>>

> None of your scenarios have code attached. However, assuming what you
> say is true, that means that using object types makes your database code
> maintenance hugely difficult. Instead of just create or replace on the
> pl/sql you have to drop and recreate the table, including managing any
> existing data.

Tom Kyte, among others, recommends using object-relational views rather than object tables. A recommendation with which I concur. What you have given voice to is just another reason to reinforce that conclusion.

>> I challenge you to search these c.d.o. usenet groups and compare the
>> number of questions asked to the number of complaints like yours

>
> People don't complain, they just go elsewhere.

Something you have determined by the scarcity of people using these groups? And people that have been here for years?

>> We help people because we want to and for no other reason. If you do not
>> like the quality, or the quantity, or the manner in which that help is
>> offered how is that my, or our, problem?
>>

> Its your problem because you are the one replying in a bullying manner.
> I'm not going to sit back and be bullied.

Suggesting that someone having invested far more time in asking the question than in opening up a SQL*Plus session and doing some work is bullying? Thanks for the heads-up.

 > Actually, I haven't read any of the other posts yet. But you are
 > missing the point again. I wasn't asking for help, I was taking part
 > in a conversion.

So you are not the OP ... you are just a lurker who couldn't offer any constructive help to the OP but chooses to waste bandwidth complaining about someone that does. That explains it.

-- 
Daniel A. Morgan
http://www.psoug.org
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace x with u to respond)

Received on Sun Jul 17 2005 - 18:03:05 CDT