Re: ALTER TABLE LOCK DISABLE
- From: jungwolf <spatenau@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: lawrence.wolfson@xxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 15:14:14 -0600
> From: K Gopalakrishnan [mailto:kaygopal@xxxxxxxxx]
> I wouldn't subscribe to DISABLE TABLE LOCKS arguement as that posses a
> serious threat to HA operations. You can not re-build indexes or do
> any online table maintenence operations that requires table locking.
> It was even documented in Steve's internals book. But that is for OPS.
On Fri, 25 Mar 2005 14:51:27 -0600, Wolfson Larry - lwolfs
<lawrence.wolfson@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I kinda like the fact that people couldn't inadvertently drop a
> table.
Eh? Can't drop a table inadvertently? I need to look at this option.
So, how about using it for read-only objects? You don't need to
rebuild or do other maintenance, they are already saved (or better
be!), and this keeps them from being dropped. And possibly a
performance boost.
There was another thread discussing some people's (my) surprise that
you can drop an object in a readonly tablespace. Maybe this is the
command I've been looking for. Any ideas/advice?
Steven
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: ALTER TABLE LOCK DISABLE
- From: Paul Baumgartel
- References:
- RE: ALTER TABLE LOCK DISABLE
- From: Wolfson Larry - lwolfs
Other related posts:
- » ALTER TABLE LOCK DISABLE
- » Re: ALTER TABLE LOCK DISABLE
- » RE: ALTER TABLE LOCK DISABLE
- » Re: ALTER TABLE LOCK DISABLE
- » Re: ALTER TABLE LOCK DISABLE
- » RE: ALTER TABLE LOCK DISABLE
- » Re: ALTER TABLE LOCK DISABLE
- Re: ALTER TABLE LOCK DISABLE
- From: Paul Baumgartel
- RE: ALTER TABLE LOCK DISABLE
- From: Wolfson Larry - lwolfs