Re: New feature

Mark C. Stock wrote:

> "Jonathan Lewis" <jonathan_at_jlcomp.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:c4hhia$ao8$1_at_titan.btinternet.com...
> |
> | "Hans Forbrich" <forbrich_at_yahoo.net> wrote in message
> | news:ltXac.4421$hH3.4221_at_edtnps84...
> | > Mark C. Stock wrote:
> | >
> | > >
> | > > "Hans Forbrich" <forbrich_at_yahoo.net> wrote in message
> | > > news:N7Xac.4414$hH3.3538_at_edtnps84...
> | > > | Mark C. Stock wrote:
> | > > |
> | > > | >
> | > > | > "Glen A Stromquist" <glen_stromquist_at_no_spam_yahoo.com> wrote in
> | > > | > message news:JwWac.4061$hH3.3709_at_edtnps84...
> | > > | > | Daniel Morgan wrote:
> | > > | > |
> | > > | > | > Jonathan Lewis wrote:
> | > > | > | >
> | > > | > | >> This only works if you set hidden parameter
> | > > | > | >> _unbreakable = false
> | > > | > | >
> | > > | > | >
> | > > | > | > But to get that to work don't you also have to set
> | > > | > | >
> | > > | > | > _dba = expendable
> | > > | > | >
> | > > | > | I just tried another undocumented feature,
> | > > _dba_auto_pay_increase=TRUE,
> | > > | > | on our financial system.
> | > > | > |
> | > > | > | I'll keep you all posted....
> | > > | > |
> | > > | > |
> | > > | >
> | > > | > there is a posted bug on that feature (available only via the
> | MetaLink
> | > > | > Classic interface, and only for 12z beta testers) that indicates
> it
> | > > | > does not handle NULLs properly
> | > > | >
> | > > |
> | > > | When I checked, the reference was that _dba_auto_pay_incr_rate had
> to
> | be
> | > > set
> | > > | and could not be left null. Otherwise the increase rate was
> | > > | indeterminate (leading to the black hole of tri-valued logic).
> | > > |
> | > > | BTW ... From what I can tell, it's best to set
> _dba_auto_pay_incr_rate
> | > > | to
> | > > a
> | > > | multiple of DB_CACHE_SIZE to get optimal DBa performance.
> | > > |
> | > > |
> | > >
> | > > you need to do a little more testing, i'm pretty sure the
> recommendation
> | > > is an exponent of DBA_CASH_SIZE
> | > >
> | > > ;-{ mcs
> | >
> | > It surely seemed like a typo. Your analysis makes more sense ... and
> ties
> | > in closely with the (undocumented) definition of the
> _dba_cash_size_target
> | > parameter
> | >
> | >
> |
> | Is that covered in the Oracle Wallet documentation ?
> |
> |
> |
>
> No, unfortunately, not, as it was already overstuffed (due to unexpected
> deallocations from ORACLE_USER_WALLET).
>
> ;-{ mcs
>
>

For those that use personal edition, there is another undocumented gem called _set_significant_other_mood that will apparantly accept the parameters "yes", "no" and "perhaps". Unbeknown to most though, if this is not set it defauts to use dbms_random, making it highly unpredictable and has been known to cause much frustration, especially with db "links"

hth

cheers! Received on Thu Apr 01 2004 - 12:29:42 CST