Persistent Stored Modules

The standard name for StoredProcedures (See

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...

EditText of this page (last edited May 1, 2008) or FindPage with title or text search