Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: Flashback isn't, er, flashing.
"Domenic" <domenicg_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:c7e08a19.0405251643.4f2b2c_at_posting.google.com...
> The difference is in the patch level. Patch Windows to the same level
> as Linux and it will work.
>
> Dom.
Thanks for the advice, Domenic.
However, on what authority do you make it? I mean, where have you noted that this is a known bug that is fixed by applying a particular patch?
I suspect you can't answer that (but would be happy to be proved wrong), because sometimes it works on the 9.2.0.1 database, and sometimes it doesn't! Which rather suggests its not the patch level at all :-(
Here's a test which, as far as I can tell, is almost identical to that which I included in my original post:
SQL> select * from v$version;
BANNER
SQL> select sum(sal) from emp;
SUM(SAL)
3976.02
(The current salaries)
SQL> exec
dbms_flashback.enable_at_time(to_timestamp('26-05-2004:13:25:00','DD-M
M-YYYY:HH24:MI:SS'))
PL/SQL procedure successfully completed.
SQL> select sum(sal) from emp;
SUM(SAL)
29025
(The original salaries are visible. Now for the acid test):
SQL> select sum(sal) from emp as of timestamp 2 (to_timestamp('26-05-2004:13:25:00','DD-MM-YYYY:HH24:MI:SS'));
SUM(SAL)
29025
Ooo-errr. So now table-level flashback is producing exactly the same result as the session-level version, whereas yesterday it wasn't.
Now maybe it's my timing, my typing, or the wind-speed direction, and if anyone can spot the obvious howler I'm making that's causing the error, I'd be grateful if you'd point it out. But the one thing this isn't, I venture to suggest, is the patch level of the database. Neither can it be my other suggestion from the original post: the operating system.
I dare say I would have offered exactly the same advice to a customer who just wants the feature to work. But it's not quite what someone who wants to actually understand why the problem arises in the first place needs to hear.
But thanks anyway
HJR
Received on Tue May 25 2004 - 22:39:52 CDT