Re: 10.2.0.4 upgrade - How did it go for you?
Date: Thu, 10 Apr 2008 13:08:59 -0600
Thanks to all of those who are replying so far.
I said 10.2.0.3 was horrible because we've had a lot of issues with it (bind peeking's been a joy). We set cursor_sharing=similar in our environments that lead to a nice host of Oracle 7445 and 600 errors. Additionally, there are issues with Oracle Streams that we keep encountering that I'm hoping 10.2.0.4 has addressed. In all we've applied grundles of one-off patches to our 10.2.0.3 environment to try and stabilize it which is why I am really interested in the real-world 10.2.0.4 experience out there. The comments about ESRI and GIS do affect us since we house SDE data in our Oracle DB (thanks, Chris, for that information).
On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 12:30 PM, sol beach <sol.beach_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> Why do you state 10.2.0.3 is a horrible version?
> I just completed installing on a new system to support a GIS (Spatial)
> Based on this thread & reported problems WRT Spatial & 10.2.04,
> now I get to reinstall 10.2.0.1 & need to decide which patch to install.
> On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 10:10 AM, Brian <moabrivers_at_gmail.com> wrote:
> > We are planning on upgrading from 10.2.0.3 (the horrible version) to
> > 10.2.0.4 (the blessed version....can you see my hopes hanging high?).
> > I've reviewed Metalink Note:555579.1 for the known issues but I would
> > like to find out what real experience those of you who have gone through the
> > 10.2.0.4 upgrade have experienced. Ours is a 2-node Linux X86_64
> > cluster that utilizes ASM.
> > We have already upgraded single node test instances without any issues
> > to 10.2.0.4 and I haven't seen any problems but I'm interested in the
> > RAC rollout or other issues we've yet to see.
> > Thanks,
> > Brian
> > * *