On Mon, May 09, 2005 at 10:05:38AM -0700, Josh Berkus wrote:
> I've also never much liked Oracle's seperate package_header and package_body
> declaration structure: if the two are intrinsically tied, why not make it one
> declaration? Is syntactical compatibility important enough that we need to
> imitate their design errors?
Actually, there is a notable difference between the two. Replacing the
body of a package has a minimal impact on the database, but replacing
the header requires more work to invalidate cached stuff. I think
there's also a few other side effects.
This isn't to say that this is a good way to handle this, but I believe
it's why Oracle does it.
--
Jim C. Nasby, Database Consultant [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Give your computer some brain candy! www.distributed.net Team #1828
Windows: "Where do you want to go today?"
Linux: "Where do you want to go tomorrow?"
FreeBSD: "Are you guys coming, or what?"
---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 9: the planner will ignore your desire to choose an index scan if your
joining column's datatypes do not match
