RE: infoworld call
Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:17:59 -0600
Message-ID: <C5533BD628A9524496D63801704AE56D6ADCE0C808_at_SPOBMEXC14.adprod.directory>
Jonathan,
Can you clarify what you meant about 'your only protection'. I didn't quite follow that piece.
Thanks!
Chris Taylor
Sr. Oracle DBA
Ingram Barge Company
Nashville, TN 37205
"Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of intelligent effort."
-- John Ruskin (English Writer 1819-1900)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the sender immediately and delete the contents of this message without disclosing the contents to anyone, using them for any purpose, or storing or copying the information on any medium.
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org] On Behalf Of Jonathan Lewis
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 11:03 AM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: infoworld call
Raising the limit to 2^64 won't help unless they also remove the feature that allows you to set the current SCN to an arbitrary multiple of 2^32, or scale up the number of SCN increments so that a "genuine" job can't possibly make them happen fast enough.
My laptop can advance the SCN about 150,000 times per second - which means it will take slightly less than 8 hours to get through 4 billion - which means that's the longest time it will take for me to prepare my laptop to be a threat. Your only protection comes from knowing confident that your system can't increment the SCN faster than Oracle's limiting rate because I have to start by injecting a value that is "behind" a critical value and let you run on from there.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com
Oracle Core (Apress 2011)
http://www.apress.com/9781430239543
- Original Message ----- From: "Allen, Brandon" <Brandon.Allen_at_OneNeck.com> To: <dedba_at_tpg.com.au>; <oracle-l_at_freelists.org> Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 3:46 PM Subject: RE: infoworld call
They do indicate that this is in the plans at the bottom of MOS 1376995.1
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org [mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]
On Behalf Of De DBA
<snip>
I would like to think that the hard limit in future versions will be put at
a bit higher than a 48-bit integer...
<snip>
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message or
attachments hereto. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do
not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions,
conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the
official business of this company shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by it.
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4754 - Release Date: 01/19/12
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Received on Fri Jan 20 2012 - 13:17:59 CST