Re: How to apply archive logs on an cold backup

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:4137e97f$0$14799$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> Bob Jones wrote:
>
>
> > In order to provide further advice, I need to make many assumptions
about
> > OP's environment, his level of skill, and his purpose.
>
> In order to provide *meaningful* advice, you don't make ASSUMPTIONS at
all.
> You ask him about it, and react accordingly to the information he
provides.
> And that, Bob, has been my precise point all along. You didn't ask him;
you
> didn't canvass all possibilities; you just assumed a situation and
answered
> according to your assumption.
>

You can try to twist the argument all you want but it is kind of low to cut my comments like that and change the meaning of the whole point. Is that all you can do now, playing word games.

For the last time, I did not make any assumptions. I simply answered his question. In fact, I don't even care what his purpose for applying archive logs to a cold backup is. Your response on the other hand was that archive logs do not get applied to a cold backup, and then later said ordinarily and most commonly don't. Just go back and read your own posts and see how many assumptions you made.

>
> > It is more like if a person wants to know how to peel a potato, you show
> > him how. You don't tell him to thred the potato instead. The analogy
> > serves no purpose here other than trying to divert the issue further.
>
> I think we can all here judge whether the issue has been diverted or not.
>

It is very much so.

> >> Similarly, when asked 'How do I recover a database using a cold
backup?',
> >> one replies "By issuing the command 'recover database .. using backup
> >> controlfile'" only if one doesn't want to be making much sense. Because
> >> ordinarily, and most commonly, no you don't.
> >>
> >
> > Why not? When you lose everything, the only thing you have is a cold
> > backup and archive logs.
>
> One more time then. Where in the original post does it say he's lost
> everything? (Clue: it doesn't).
>
> That he has lost everything is an *assumption* you've made.
>

No, I did not make that assumption. I simply pointed out one situation under which you would want to apply archive logs to a cold backup. That alone defeats the argument you are making so far.

> Based on the information he actually provided, the best you (or I) can
> advise him is that because he is in archivelog mode, he has all the
options
> that anyone else in archivelog mode has to recover a database. That's it.
>

Boy, am I wasting my time. His question was how to apply archive logs to a cold backup, not how to recover a database. Go back and read what answers you provided and ask yourself who is making no sense.

> Before you start handing out recovery commands for scenarios that may or
may
> not apply: *find out what the situation actually is*.
>
> Which you singularly failed to do. And which I, in contrast, invited him
to
> let me know about if the generalised advice was not sufficient for his
> purposes.
>
> See the difference?
>

The difference is that I didn't treat him like a dummy and I didn't have that arrogant attitude towards his question either. You are apparently still having trouble understanding his very simple question - HOW TO APPLY ARCHIVE LOGS TO A COLD BACKUP. You generalised advice gave him nothing.

> > As I said, I don't try to guess OP's situation. There can be many IFs.
>
> But you *did* guess it. You have assumed he has "lost everything". Your
> words. Here's the original poster's words:
>
> "i have the database with archive log and one cold backup.
> how to apply archive log in cold backup?"
>
> Where in that does it say what he has lost? If we're going to get into
> textual analysis, one might reasonably argue that he tells you in plain
> terms that he has NOT lost everything, because "I have the database".
>
> Now it is because you have assumed the loss of everything that you have
> advised him to use 'recover database...using backup controlfile'. But the
> assumption is just an assumption, and the command you offered may not be
> appropriate. (And never mind that if he had actually lost *everything*, he
> would have needed a 'until ...' clause in there to be successful -because
> he'd have lost his current redo log).
>

This is just laughable. You have so far made no attempt to carry out an honest debate. You repeatly ignore or avoid the point I was trying to make by making an issue out of something else. That sort of tactic is embarrassing.

> What was worse, though, is that the command you offered has risks and
costs
> associated with it which the hypothetical advice to, say, "just do
'recover
> database'" does not. But you made no mention of those risks or costs.
>
> And *that* is why your advice was complete trash. It was ONE command,
where
> many could have been offered; based on an assumption about his situation
> that his actual post does not support; without a word of warning about the
> costs associated with the command offered; without a hint that there might
> be other commands to be used in other circumstances.
>

Here we go again. I thought we have been through this. You seem to have a short memory.

> > This sounds like an argument from a lousy lawyer who argue only for the
> > win not for the fact.
>
> Flounder away, flatfish. No-one here is paying attention any more.

You have once again underestimated everyone. Your lawyer tactic did not divert their attention. Just stop before you make a bigger fool out of yourself. Received on Sat Sep 04 2004 - 16:11:02 CDT