| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: er, 'interesting' new 9i feature
Sorry, one more thing. Just checked the 9i R2 SQL Reference manual, and
sure enough, this is expected new functionality. Check out the last
sentence in particular:
You can copy the statements from the trace file into a script file, edit the statements as necessary, and use the script if all copies of the control file are lost (or to change the size of the control file).
Specify AS filename if you want Oracle to place the script into a file called filename rather than into the standard trace file.
Specify REUSE to allow Oracle to overwrite any existing file called filename.
RESETLOGS indicates that the SQL statement written to the trace file for starting the database is ALTER DATABASE OPEN RESETLOGS. This setting is valid only if the online logs are unavailable.
NORESETLOGS indicates that the SQL statement written to the trace file for starting the database is ALTER DATABASE OPEN NORESETLOGS. This setting is valid only if all the online logs are available.
If you cannot predict the future state of the online logs, specify neither RESETLOGS nor NORESETLOGS. In this case, Oracle puts both versions of the script into the trace file, and you can choose which version is appropriate when the script becomes necessary.
So, that makes sense, I guess.
Regards,
Sean
Sean M wrote:
>
> "Howard J. Rogers" wrote:
> >
> > Have you noticed that backup controlfile to trace now outputs a tracefile
> > containing the 'create controlfile' stuff *twice*? Once with the word
> > 'noresetlogs' attached. And once with the word 'resetlogs'. No other
> > differences detectable.
>
> There are 2 other differences in the two statements: 1) the alter
> database open command differs by the word resetlogs (not just the create
> controlfile statement) and 2) the recover database command does not
> contain the "using backup controlfile" clause for the noresetlogs case.
> So I guess I can understand why they allow for both scenarios since the
> does differ a bit more than just the "no". I don't feel really strongly
> either way actually.
>
> > This is happening in 9i R2, and it occurs to me that I don't think it
> > happened in 9i R1... but was wondering if anyone could check for me?
>
> Yes, you're correct, this is a new R2 feature - didn't happen like this
> in R1.
>
> > Quite what was wrong with editing out the two letters "no", like we used to
> > in earlier versions, I have no idea. I can already smell the confusion users
> > are going to get themselves into using the new, improved version.
>
> Yeah, might prove a bit difficult to explain to newbies, but I think I
> understand the intent, if not the execution, of the change. Seems like
> they could just force you to add the word 'resetlogs' or 'noresetlogs'
> when you do your 'alter database backup controlfile to trace' command
> instead of letting it default. That way you'd know what kind of script
> you're generating. Instead they give you both. Eh. I suppose as long
> as I don't have to teach people about it, I'm OK with it. (Sorry
> Howard.) :)
>
> Now, what I really don't understand is that they only managed to change
> the comment character in certain places within the script, but not all.
> There's still a bunch of #'s instead of -- 's. #'s are great if you're
> still using svrmgrl and 8.0.5, but this is 9i folks! SQLPLUS likes --
> 's. They only seemed to fix this in a few places, not the whole .trc
> file. OK, minor nitpick, but still... if you're going to fix it, then
> why not fix it everywhere!
>
> Thanks for lettting me rant,
> Sean M
Received on Wed Jul 17 2002 - 15:57:29 CDT
 |
 |