Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid
HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US
 

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: session_cached_cursors and ora-07745

Re: session_cached_cursors and ora-07745

From: Robyn <robyn.sands_at_gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2005 17:18:30 -0500
Message-ID: <ece8554c05032314186d5f5cab@mail.gmail.com>


Hello all,

Just wanted to share an update on this topic. I had removed the session_cached_cursors parameter on this instance based on metalink note 274496.1. Once I did this, I was able to start the database and it remained up for about a week, only to crash again last Friday afternoon. Turns out there was a bug involved. (description below) We are using extensive Java in several 9.2.0.5/9.2.0.6 databases and have only seen this issue on one database. I've applied the patch and thus far, it looks good but I haven't made it through Friday yet.

A patch is available for version 9.2.0.5 as well.

Robyn

BUG



3691672 OERI[17067]/ OERI[26599] / dump (kgllkdl) from JavaVM / OERI:1100 from PMON

Details: This problem is introduced in 9.2.0.6 by the fix for bug 3253770. ORA-600 [17067] / ORA-600 [26599] and numerous other errors can occur using Java in the database, especially where there is a high degree of concurrency. This problem can lead to a subsequent ORA-600 [1100] error in PMON causing an instance crash.

Note: This problem was originally listed as fixed in 9.2.0.6 but the fix is incomplete and the problem shows internal errors in 9.2.0.6.

On Tue, 15 Mar 2005 16:50:58 -0500, Robyn <robyn.sands_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> One of my test/dev instances went belly up yesterday morning with
> ORA-07445 errors in the alert log. I've the the database back but I
> ran across a doc on metalink (Note:274496.1) that indicates using
> parameter session_cached_cursors should not be used with version
> 9.2.0.5 and up.
>
> This database is 9.2.0.6 / HP-UX 11.23. I've been selectively using
> session_cached_cursor with other 9.2.0 databases but this is the first
> db that I've seen these errors on. Has anyone else seen this happen
> and/or heard that this param should not be used?
>
> tia ... Robyn
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Wed Mar 23 2005 - 17:22:11 CST

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US