Re: Synonyms are a pain!

Sybrand:

I'm a little uncertain about private synonyms. I'd have to create a set for each user, right? Then I'd have to grant the usual privileges (INSERT, DELETE, UPDATE, DELETE) to each user.

If this is all correct, with 10-30 possible users, does it make any sense to use private synonyms?

Thanks very much >>> Robert

• Original Message ----- From: "Sybrand Bakker" <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> Newsgroups: comp.databases.oracle.server Sent: Thursday, May 04, 2000 3:53 PM Subject: Re: Synonyms are a pain!

"Sybrand Bakker" <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote in message news:957469924.8355.0.pluto.d4ee154e_at_news.demon.nl...
>
> Robert Wagner <RobertWagner_at_alum.mit.edu> schreef in berichtnieuws
> a4kQ4.5323$J81.40251_at_newsr1.maine.rr.com...
> > Here's what I understand now:
> >
> > In order to allow any user other than a schema owner to access a schema
> > object, it's necessary to create a synonym for each and every object or
 to
> > use the syntax
> >
> > schema_owner.object_name
> >
> > when referencing it. To make matters worse, the synonyms don't export
 with
> > the schema they reference, so they're a pain to ship to a new
 installation.
> >
> > Is there any simpler, more reliable way to allow a designated group of
 users
> > to access a schema's objects without using the above syntax?
> >
> >
> > Cheers >>>>>>>>>>>> Robert R. Wagner
> > ExpanTest, Inc.
> > 22 Monument Square, Suite 503
> > Portland, ME 04101-4031
> > http://www.gwi.net/expantest/
> > robertwagner_at_alum.mit.edu
> >
> >
>
> The general and more reliable way is to write a script that simply
 generates
> synonyms for all objects you have been granted access to and you are set.
> You should use either private or public synonyms, using the
> owner.object_name notation makes you extreemly inflexible.
>
> Hth,
>
> Sybrand Bakker, Oracle DBA
>
>
>
Received on Fri May 05 2000 - 00:00:00 CDT