We came up with the below standards with respect to database links (heavily
used in our environment). The result has been a billion complaints by
our developers, stating that the standards are unnecessarily complex. I'm
curious as to what others might think, if they *are* indeed too complex.
Also what kind of naming/adminstrative standards that other shops employ.
1. To access remote data across a DB LINK, the
standard implementation consists of four pieces:
a) A private database link owned by the schema owner of the table
objects being accessed. The CONNECT TO and IDENTIFIED BY clauses are
required
- Naming Standard: {remote schema}_{database name}
b) A standard PUBLIC SYNONYM created for the remote table being
accessed across the link.
- Naming Standard: {remote schema}_{remote table}. The purpose of this
synonym is both to allow portability and also to provide documentation
of the remote connection.
c) A VIEW created as a SELECT * from the PUBLIC SYNONYM above (1.b).
- Naming Standard: {remote table}_VW
d) A PUBLIC SYNONYM on the VIEW above(1.c.)
- Naming Standard: {remote table}
Thanks,
Jeff T
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
