Return-Path: Delivered-To: 2-oracle-l@orafaq.com Received: (qmail 4895 invoked from network); 12 Feb 2007 10:31:15 -0600 Received: from freelists-180.iquest.net (HELO turing.freelists.org) (206.53.239.180) by 69.64.49.119 with SMTP; 12 Feb 2007 10:31:14 -0600 Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 5ABEF5EB388; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:29:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 30104-09; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:29:59 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id C4C465EB8A3; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 11:29:58 -0500 (EST) Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list oracle-l); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:55:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 03F285ED663 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:55:09 -0500 (EST) Received: from turing.freelists.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (turing [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id 21245-05 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:55:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-ironport1.dol.gov (mail-ironport1.dol.gov [63.106.133.130]) by turing.freelists.org (Avenir Technologies Mail Multiplex) with ESMTP id 99F385ED624 for ; Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:55:08 -0500 (EST) Received: from mail-internal-dcn-ironport1.dol.gov ([10.183.133.30]) by mail-ironport1.dol.gov with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2007 10:56:24 -0500 X-HAT-SENDERGROUP: CES_OUTBOUND X-HAT-MAILFLOWPOLICY: $CES_OUTBOUND_DELIVERY X-IronPort-AV: i="4.13,314,1167627600"; d="scan'208,217"; a="81850113:sNHT101211312" Received: from wdcdcn-exbh-01.oasam.dir.labor.gov ([10.183.137.21]) by mail-internal-dcn-ironport1.dol.gov with ESMTP; 12 Feb 2007 10:56:23 -0500 X-HAT-DCN-SENDERGROUP: CES_OUTBOUND X-HAT-DCN-MAILFLOWPOLICY: $CES_OUTBOUND_DELIVERY Received: from MSHA-LAK-EXMB01.msha.dir.labor.gov ([199.115.8.128]) by wdcdcn-exbh-01.oasam.dir.labor.gov with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:56:23 -0500 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft Exchange V6.5 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C74EBE.578E2DEF" Subject: Large system level date changed Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 08:56:21 -0700 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <45CCF6D7.70001@evdbt.com> X-MS-Has-Attach: X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: Thread-Topic: Large system level date changed From: "Smith, Steven K - MSHA" To: X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2007 15:56:23.0233 (UTC) FILETIME=[581BFB10:01C74EBE] X-archive-position: 45481 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org Errors-to: oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org X-original-sender: Smith.Steven@DOL.GOV Precedence: normal Reply-to: Smith.Steven@DOL.GOV List-help: List-unsubscribe: List-software: Ecartis version 1.0.0 List-Id: oracle-l X-List-ID: oracle-l List-subscribe: List-owner: List-post: List-archive: X-list: oracle-l X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new-20030616-p10 (Debian) at avenirtech.net ------_=_NextPart_001_01C74EBE.578E2DEF Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Testing for the DST time changes is being planned here. It's actually going to have a minimal impact, but the testing needs to happen. Anyway, the request is to change the server level dates to the second Sunday in March to simulate the DST change. =20 I understand that Oracle should/doesn't use the system dates to keep transaction continuity. I was about to give my input that changing the system date should not have an issue on the database itself until I ran into metalink note # 253977.1 =20 That note says: =20 "While opening the database, Oracle compares the given SCN value=20 with the reasonable upper limit value calculated based on the=20 system date. If Oracle detects the provided scn is too large,=20 ORA-600[2252] would be raised." =20 Now I'm a little concerned that when we change the system date back to the current correct date, I might have issues. =20 Anyone have any experience with this? =20 Steve Smith Envision Technology Partners / MSHA MSIS Team Desk: 303-231-5499 =20 =20 ------_=_NextPart_001_01C74EBE.578E2DEF Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message
Testing for the DST=20 time changes is being planned here.  It's actually going to have a = minimal=20 impact, but the testing needs to happen.  Anyway, the request is to = change=20 the server level dates to the second Sunday in March to simulate the DST = change.
 
I = understand that=20 Oracle should/doesn't use the system dates to keep transaction = continuity. =20 I was about to give my input that changing the system date should not = have an=20 issue on the database itself until I ran into metalink note #=20 253977.1
 
That = note=20 says:
 
"While opening the database, Oracle compares the given SCN value =
with=20 the reasonable upper limit value calculated based on the
system = date. If=20 Oracle detects the provided scn is too large,
ORA-600[2252] would be = raised."
 
Now I'm a little concerned that = when we change=20 the system date back to the current correct date, I might have=20 issues.
 
Anyone have any=20 experience with this?

 

Steve=20 Smith

Envision=20 Technology Partners / MSHA MSIS Team

Desk:=20 303-231-5499

 

 

= ------_=_NextPart_001_01C74EBE.578E2DEF-- -- http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l