A couple of comments in-line.
--
Jonathan Lewis
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk
Next Seminars
UK July / Sept
Australia July / August
Malaysia September
USA (MI) November
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/seminar.html
Howard J. Rogers wrote in message ...
>So the database opens fine, but the table is missing, in its entirety. Not
>just the records.... the table itself. Why? Because when you create a table
>'nologging', the entries in the data dictionary to record its creation are
>not logged either. Therefore, the change to the data dictionary is lost
>along with the insertion of records. But the database is consistent
>(consistently missing table NASTY, anyway).
>
I think you may need to review the above.
The data dictionary entries to record its creation are logged,
but the sequence of events is:
create temporary segment
load data into temporary segment
create most table definitions entries
attach temp segement to table definition
eliminate temp segment definition.
So if you crash in mid-create, there is only a temp segment
definition in the dictionary to clear out (smon) on startup.
>
>So the last batch insert was lost, but not the preceeding ones. I *was*
>committing after each insert, though. Had I not been, I would have lost the
>lot. But the database would have opened consistent.
>
It doesn't change the nature of your argument, but if you
had not been committing between inserts you would have
got oracle error:
ORA-12838: cannot read/modify an object after modifying it in parallel.
;)
Received on Wed Jul 10 2002 - 02:44:38 CDT
