Re: Please help: stuck with ORA-12514

"Frank van Bortel" <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net> wrote in message news:caq2b4$517$1_at_news2.tilbu1.nb.home.nl...

>

Don't apologise! I felt no criticism. I just think that a background process should be known as a background process regardless of the platform architecture we're dealing with, because it's a well-worn Oraclism.

It's a bit like (but not exactly) telling someone to open a "DOS Window", even though you know they're running on Windows 2003, and the command window is not actually DOS at all... some things acquire names by which they should be known even if technically imprecise or flat-out wrong.

Another trickier example: I still talk and write about DBWR and ARCH. Technically, that's incorrect, because the processes grep'd on a Unix box would actually be listed as DBW0 and ARC0, even when there's only one of each. Since 8.0, we've been supposed to talk about "DBWn" and "ARCn". Should we? Do we? I find myself doing so when I'm in full pedant mode, and not when I want a friendly name to apply to them, not something that looks like it comes from the Big Boys Book of Equations. I also sometimes remind myself that Unix users don't need nice friendly names for things, so who cares if the name used doesn't match with a ps listing; whereas Windows users do need friendly names, and won't be able to see anything else used by Oracle itself, so the secret is safe! It's a dashed complicated world we live in!!

> The response "where does this process come from" upon you starting
> off on PMON triggered the urge to reply, and -hopefully- clarify
> for the OP. Unless A. Coder replies, we'll never know, will we?

I take the point.

Regards
HJR Received on Wed Jun 16 2004 - 15:48:34 CDT