Re: Flashback isn't, er, flashing.

Howard J. Rogers wrote:

> Put it this way. If I am writing an article on flashback, and wish to put in
> some advice as to known issues and known fixes, I actually have to *know*
> about them, not just sweepingly state that something is wrong that gets
> fixed at some point somewhere between a release and some patch. I need a bit
> more science than that!!

How about the following ... and you don't need to give me credit as an author.

Every new feature released in any software product is bound to have some flaw or bug that must be discovered, reported, and hopefully fixed, in some subsequent release. It is therefore essential that when the vendor releases patches you determine whether they are stable and if they are apply them to your database.

One such situation exists with flashback in Oracle 9.2.0.1. The error was correct in a patch and it is therefore advisable that when using this feature you use the most stable possible version which would be version 9.2.0.4 or later.

  > But thank you for the demo link. I'd already seen them, of course. And I
> don't mean that in a snotty way, just that your site is very useful, and
> should be on more people's list of things to visit before posting here. I
> note you are a bit short on table-level flashback, though, which is where
> all the fun and games start.
>
> Regards
> HJR
I'm working on my summer Oracle Intensive that starts in two weeks and which will be taught entirely in 10g. No doubt you will soon see many new changes to the site including table-level flashback, more regular expressions, and much much more.

-- 
Daniel Morgan
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/oad/oad_crs.asp
http://www.outreach.washington.edu/ext/certificates/aoa/aoa_crs.asp
damorgan_at_x.washington.edu
(replace 'x' with a 'u' to reply)