Re: NULLs are now always NULLs ?

Syltrem wrote:

>And I think nobody knows what this last parameter is about... so that's not
>to help either.

http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/ask/f?p=4950:8:::::F4950_P8_DISPLAYID:6793026818923 says it is the name, which is not used by the 10046 trace.

Wild guesses about the null issue: sending in the keyword null is doing some implicit datatyping, perhaps buggedly, perhaps violating a rule about what can be passed, perhaps actually working and looking for a non-existent something to trace with a null name, perhaps not getting to datatyping only if a literal. Too bad dbms_system is wrapped, eh?

jg

--
@home.com is bogus.  "You wouldn't think it would be possible for
Google to repeat the same mistakes as AltaVista.  You would think
Google would remember that one of the reasons it exists is because of
the dumb things other people once did."
http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20060322/news_1b22google.html