The standard name for StoredProcedures (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQL/PSM).
Odd, redundant-sounding name. As opposed to non-persistent stored modules? Or persistent non-stored modules? Is this something the org gave thought to, or is name size importance-phallic for them?
I don't know, but since it seems like the only database that actually implements this standard is DbTwo, I guess the name is only the first of its failures
IBM probably "influenced" the standard to begin with.
"A persistent stored module is a collection of one or more stored procedures or
functions that typically share some properties."
It seems to justify the "module" part of the name by saying that "it is not unusual to be able to group stored procedures of functions with similar
behaviour into modules", but I still can not find a justification for the redundant "persistent" and "stored" part of the name.. I'll keep reading...