Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: ORA -16014 - Error in archiving, no available destination

Re: ORA -16014 - Error in archiving, no available destination

From: Howard J. Rogers <>
Date: Thu, 25 Mar 2004 21:03:59 +1100
Message-ID: <4062ae92$0$3955$>

"srivenu" <> wrote in message
> >So would you now care to correct your first statement above?
> I have to correct the statement for 9i.

> ............
> I did not know that things have changed in 9i (But they have).
> in 9i, if REOPEN is not given it is being taken as REOPEN=300
> whereas in 8i if REOPEN is not given it is being taken as REOPEN=0
> >You seem to make a habit of ignoring the actual evidence I post,
> obtained by
> >means of repeatable tests.
> Sorry if you take it that way.

I don't know how else to take it. I post you the SQL statements and the results from v$ views, and you merely repeat your earlier assertion about REOPEN behaviour, seemingly oblivious to the fact that the SQL statements and v$ view contradict you.

It isn't *that* hard to be precise. When confronted with a SQL test that contradicts you, you could at that point simply have clarified that the behaviour you sought to describe was 8i-specific.

Or, we could have had a much richer exchange here if you'd countered my example with a matching example of your own showing the behaviour you describe. Then we would have both come to the conclusion that REOPEN behaviour was version-specific, and both learnt something from the experience.

It is rather like my listener.log in another thread. Your replies just appear to ignore it as an inconvenience, despite it showing in black and white that 'every minute PMON registration' is clearly not the whole story. Ignoring things isn't a terribly productive learning method.

>I'am here to learn things and nothing
> else.

An attitude which does you credit then. But learning requires paying attention to what others actually say/write, not just being oblivious to it. Learning comes from dialog and verification, not mere assertion and re-assertion.

One word of friendly warning, too. You appear to place a high degree of reliance on what you find at Metalink. I wouldn't, if I were you. It is not exactly renowned for the accuracy of its technical insight, or the ease with which it is possible to find more up-to-date information.

HJR Received on Thu Mar 25 2004 - 04:03:59 CST

Original text of this message