Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> Re: 9i DataGuard, RAC primary - secondary offline for networkmaintenance

Re: 9i DataGuard, RAC primary - secondary offline for networkmaintenance

From: S. Anthony Sequeira <>
Date: Wed, 6 Dec 2006 13:36:26 -0000 (GMT)
Message-ID: <>

On Wed, December 6, 2006 8:54, Niall Litchfield said:
> On 12/6/06, Ric Van Dyke <> wrote:
>> Carel-Jan,
>> You are very correct that as stated in the documentation the version
>> of
>> Oracle are supposed to be the same (as in identical) on the primary
>> and the
>> standby. However I worked with the folks who developed the standby
>> database
>> code and this is more of a CYA requirement then a real one. There
>> was some
>> long discussions about this requirement and I believe that
>> "paranoia" won
>> out, the idea being it's better to be over restrictive then not.
>> The issue
>> is more about the format of the redo log stream then anything else.
>> It's
>> very likely that this setup will work just fine. And given that Tony
>> (apparently) has been running with this setup for some period of
>> time, it's
>> again likely that this will continue to work just fine.
> My take on this is that this is merely the technical issue as to
> whether the
> standby database will physically work. I don't see it as the
> important
> issue here at all. I think there are at least 2 likely more important
> issues.
> First is the support issue, it may not be a likely scenario, but
> people
> invest in DG precisely because they value extremely highly the
> availability
> and supportability of the platform that their data is on. Otherwise
> the
> logical thing to do is no standby or a cheaper solution for HA. It
> doesn't
> make any sense to me to spend those dollars and man-hours getting the
> thing
> setup and then make it unsupported.
> Second is the fact that generally it isn't the data that people want
> to make
> available, but the data and the applications that access that data.
> Here we
> are specifically told that the application mandates a lower patchset
> than
> the standby is at. In otherwords in the event of a switchover or
> failover
> the application is at a non-mandated patchset level.
> Now for sure this all may well work perfectly practicably, but it does
> rather raise the General's question about a nuclear deterrent "What
> the ****
> is the thing for?" It's back, for me, to a common fault of DBAs
> (myself most
> definitely included this isn't aimed at the OP) that we consider
> carefully
> technical issues and forget the business issues that are at the root
> of the
> technical course of action in the first place.

Hi Guys,

Very interesting discussion here. Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your viewpoint), this was a simple typo by me. The standby database's version and patch level is identical to that of the primary. :) Apologies.

Funnily enough I posted the same query to Metalink (with the same typo), haven't got an answer yet though.

I have to deal with this in my lunch breaks/free time, as I'm working on another customer site right now.


Will update this evening.

Also, I subscribe to the list, copies to me are a wasted effort, though my duplicate filter will /dev/null them.


Received on Wed Dec 06 2006 - 07:36:26 CST

Original text of this message