RE: Thoughts on patch install wording

From: Patterson, Joel <>
Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2012 10:42:50 -0400
Message-ID: <>

Ah yes the fresh install scenario into new home with full software idea.... brings with a short discussion and discovery of how you wish to deal with your possibly new OFA.

I wrestled with this awhile and decide to use a 5 digit home .../product/ BTW Notice that I do not use dbhome_1, dbhome_2 as I had no reasons yet. Here is a scenario that helped resolve why.

For instance to go from to you have to go to first. (this means installing 112010 software in /product/ and /product/ and applying 112033 to /product/

This allows you to 'actually upgrade 'one' database at a time (assuming multiple 112010 databases) A database could go to, and then to

Otherwise after the first database goes to -- your stuck, because the second database has to go to first... so it has to have a place to go....

So in order to have the flexibility to do all of them or one of them from now on... I chose a different home for every version.

Joel Patterson
Database Administrator
904 727-2546

-----Original Message-----
From: [] On Behalf Of Hemant K Chitale Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2012 11:08 PM To:
Subject: Re: Thoughts on patch install wording

"upgraded to" implies that the RDBMS HOME has been upgraded from 10.x or 9.1

An RDBMS Home is never "upgraded to 11.2.0.x". 11.2.0.x is always a fresh install as an ORACLE_HOME. (although you can do a fresh install of and then upgrade that HOME to, the recommendation is that even would be a fresh install).

It is the database that get's upgraded, not the RDBMS HOME.

Very badly worded instructions.


On Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 1:39 AM, Walker, Jed S <
> wrote:

> This will probably be an SR to be sure about it, but I'm wondering if
> anyone has seen this and knows already.
> I have an RAC built from scratch as I have a
> patch to install (patch 13440962) and the patch says:
> # Note: The RDBMS portion can only be applied to an RDBMS home that
> # has been upgraded to **.
> This would lead me to believe I do not want to do the RDBMS portion in
> my case, because I was never at
> I'm assuming that means I can't and shouldn't apply it to mine, but
> the wording certainly could be clearer.
> It might also mean, that in my case, if I try to apply it it will just
> fail and say you don't need it, that would be fine.
> Has anyone applied this patch and know exactly what they mean?
> Thanks,
> Jed
> --


Hemant K Chitale


Received on Fri Aug 24 2012 - 09:42:50 CDT

Original text of this message