I apologize about running a one-side conversation here, but.... From what I can tell, the documentation is a bit screwed up (would not be the first time): http://download-east.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/network.102/b14266/apd vcntx.htm#sthref2431 I am most concerned about context_sensitive and shared_context_sensitive. For shared_context_sensitive, table 15-3 seems to indicate that the policy function only executes the first time the object is referenced in a session. We found that the policy only executed for the first object referenced. Hence, if you reference two objects, the first one gets cached (I have a working example for those that are curious). Does not the documentation imply that each object should have its own predicate? > _____________________________________________ > From: Schultz, Charles > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:24 AM > To: 'Oracle-L' > Subject: RE: Tracing FGAC/VPD differences between 9i and 10g > > Correction: Shared_context_sensitive does help in some situations, but > in my "simple" example, we still have the same issue due to caching > (with shared_context_sensitive). > > _____________________________________________ > From: Schultz, Charles > Sent: Wednesday, April 26, 2006 8:20 AM > To: 'Oracle-L' > Subject: RE: Tracing FGAC/VPD differences between 9i and 10g > > Not having any prior experience with VPD, I am kinda jumping in the > water on this one. We have made progress with various tracing options > and now have other issues. Specifically, we would like to reduce the > library cache latch contention due to heavy parsing caused by a policy > type of "context_sensitive". "Shared_context_sensitive" seems to help, > but "static" would be even better, if we can figure out how to > appropriately deploy it. > > Currently, our predicate function revolves around campus code (as we > are a multi-campus educational facility), hence the VPD tables each > have a vpdi column for use with the campus code. The problem is that > the table name is part of the column name (a "naming standard" from > the 3rd party vendor), hence if we use a static policy, subsequent > queries against VPD tables fail because, obviously, the function is > cached with the first table name that is executed. > > My question for the list: what is the best compromise we can achieve? > Granted, there are other VPD issues as the situation is a bit complex > - I am starting simple since that is all I understand at the moment. > =) I have been trying to read up on the documentation, but it tends to > be distracting when people keep asking questions as if I know the > answer. *grin* > > _____________________________________________ > From: Schultz, Charles > Sent: Tuesday, April 25, 2006 12:31 PM > To: Oracle-L > Subject: Tracing FGAC/VPD differences between 9i and 10g > > Does the sql trace facility (ie, event 10046) in 10g do better > recursive tracing than 9i? From some tests we are running, we are > seeing sql statements under 10g that do not show up under 9i (same > application). I tried to scour the Concepts guide, but did not find > anything relevant there (perhaps I missed it?). > > TIA, > > charles schultz > oracle dba > aits - adsd > university of illinois > >