Excellent. Thanks Sean
Regards
HJR
"Sean M" <smckeownNO_at_BACKSIESearthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3D35DA39.FCAE694E_at_BACKSIESearthlink.net...
> 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:
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
---
> TO TRACE
>
> Specify TO TRACE if you want Oracle to write SQL statements to a trace
> file rather than making a physical backup of the control file. You can
> use SQL statements written to the trace file to start up the database,
> re-create the control file, and recover and open the database
> appropriately, based on the created control file.
>
> 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 - 16:48:45 CDT
