Re: Foreign key in Oracle Sql

Pardon my jumping into the fray, here, but:

DA Morgan wrote:
> So what is it you think those of us that work in Oracle do? Do you
> think we are overly burdened by the issue you bring up? Do you
> really think I have even once written a handler for empty strings
> in Oracle? Really? Not even once have I had to. Oracle provides
> the tools to do it and have for years. Look up the built-in
> functions NVL and NVL2. So much for your "big issue."

Can I assume, then, that you've never had to clean up someone else's mess, when their package (or what-have-you) didn't understand and account for this "nit"? Sure, I don't have to write NVL, it's already there. But I very well MIGHT have to dig through hundreds of thousands of lines of code to find the place where some developer forgot to call it...or just plain didn't know to call it, as I'm more surprised to find a developer who HAS read documentation than I am to find one who hasn't. (All praise the CS/IT Diploma mills.)

I know of companies that spent lots and lots of money to clean up front-end code that broke because of this neat little trick. Regardless of the fact that Oracle provides me a way to deal with this, it's still a burden on the DBA that doesn't make any sense to me.

> > that is, a compatability setting.
>
> Works in end-user code. Doesn't work in kernel code.

I'd like to hear more about this. Why not? Why *couldn't* Oracle implement a runtime compatibility setting for this? Is there an actual TECHNICAL reason, or simply the obvious (and already discussed) slew of business reasons?

> And 100,000 existing DBAs and developers would hate it
> because they have had it a specific way for 20 years.

I wonder how many developers and DBAs would really mind? It would certainly increase the demand for Oracle developers and DBAs, making the market more competitive...it would give the people who write Oracle support tools, and apps that rest on top of Oracle, another chance to ask their customers to pay for the product(s).

It seems to me the only real "losers" would be the companies who employ Oracle solutions, and how many of the people who face that bottom line are going to understand what it is, exactly, that they're getting when they put more money into "upgrading Oracle?" My gut feeling is "not very many", but that's purely based on anecdotal evidence.

You can certainly count me as one of the DBAs/developers who wouldn't mind seeing this, and lots of other Oracle oddities, go away. :) Received on Fri Jan 21 2005 - 03:38:10 CET