"Daniel Morgan" <damorgan_at_exxesolutions.com> wrote in message
news:3ED624BE.30022D8F_at_exxesolutions.com...
> Richard Foote wrote:
>
> > <snipped>
> >
> >
> > Hi Daniel,
> >
> > Disabling redo logging effectively disables incremental checkpointing.
> >
> > Remember, why does Oracle perform checkpointing. To have a consistent
point
> > of time from which it can perform an instance recovery. However, by
> > disabling redo logging we of course are not protecting our transactional
> > changes, nothing is being written to the redo logs.
> >
> > So what would happen if we had an instance failure during this period of
no
> > redo logging. Well, we would be stuffed (Aussie technical term meaning
> > Buggered). The database would be in an unrecoverable state.
> >
> > This is not a pretty scenario so that's why *extreme caution* must be
> > exercised if anyone was silly enough to do this. In my case when I took
the
> > plunge, it was with the knowledge that if anything were to go wrong with
the
> > conversion, I could always perform a complete restore from backup.
> >
> > Cheers
> >
> > Richard
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sounds to me like something that might be reserved only for those rare
> situations such as the one you describe. Unfortunately I expect some will
see
> this as a license to do stupid stuff and make a huge mess. Oh well!
>
Agreed. But IMHO Richard's caveats are sensible and sound.
Anyone who willy-nilly messes about without having a proper backup plan
deserves exactly what they get.
In Richard's scenario, if anything goes wrong, he just restores from the
backup. That sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
Regards,
Paul
Received on Thu May 29 2003 - 16:09:50 CDT
