Re: new posts to an old issue

From: Richard Foote <richard.foote_at_bigpond.com>
Date: Tue, 02 Dec 2003 11:28:33 GMT
Message-ID: <BH_yb.36357$aT.30536@news-server.bigpond.net.au>

"yls177" <yls177_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message news:c06e4d68.0312011833.69994473_at_posting.google.com...
>

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=3f927ab3%240%2436 99%24afc38c87%40news.optusnet.com.au&rnum=8&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dyls177%2Bgrou p:comp.databases.oracle.server%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dcomp .databases.oracle.server%26scoring%3Dd
>
>
> hi, from the above... i cant post to that again. so have to link these
> two together...
>
> basically... its like this
>
> recently.. my colleagues have come up with 2 shutdown procedures and
> are as belows
>
> 1)
> alter system switch logfile
> alter system checkpoint
> shutdown abort
> startup restrict
> shutdown immediate
>
>
> 2)
> alter system switch logfile
> alter system checkpoint
> shutdown immediate
>

This has all been discussed to death previously but I'm curious about the benefits of performing the checkpoint in either scenario.

In scenario 1 it kinda defeats the "purpose" of the shutdown abort and could result in more cleaning out of uncommitted changes on disk ?

In scenario 2, an implicit checkpoint is performed regardless ?

Just curious in what your colleague's reasoning.

Cheers

Richard Received on Tue Dec 02 2003 - 05:28:33 CST