Re: How to apply archive logs on an cold backup

Comments embedded.

Bob Jones tried to say:
>
>"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.
>

The only person playing word games in this exchange is you. Howard's advice was clear, concise and appropos to the original question, unlike yours.

>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.
>

Howard has made no assumptions as to the original poster's question. Your response is shown below:

"robson" <dbanewbie_at_yahoo.com.br> wrote in message news:514f866a.0408311326.68c5d22d_at_posting.google.com...
> i have the database with archive log and one cold backup.
> how to apply archive log in cold backup?
>
> thanks,
> robson

You can specify "RECOVER DATABASE...USING BACKUP CONTROLFILE". This will
allow you roll forward to a point of your desire.

This, of course, assumes the original poster has lost his control files and is using a binary backup. No mention of this was made by the OP; in fact, we don't know the extent of his cold backup, wheter it be of datafiles only, datafiles and controlfiles or datafiles, controlfiles and archived logs. Without such knowledge it is difficult to give a SPECIFIC answer to the original question WIITHOUT making assumptions.

>>
>> > 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.
>

I beg to differ. Howard's advice was on target and informative, listing ALL possible recovery scenarios available to the original poster. There is no arrogance in his posts, and he certainly didn't treat the original poster like a dummy.

>> > 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 truly laughable, and still is laughable, is your attitude in all this. You've been shown, by more than one person, the error of your advice, yet you refuse to accept it, attempting instead to discredit Howard for his accurate and complete advice on the topic, and his response to your advice based upon, yes, you've guessed it, your assumptions.

>> 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.
>

No short memory here, simply an arrogant, and apparently clueless, person who posted incomplete advice based on erroneous assumptions. That would be you, Bob.

>> > 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.
>

howard has underestimated no one in this exchange. You, on the other hand, have severely overestimated the value of your advice.

David Fitzjarrell Received on Sat Sep 04 2004 - 17:26:36 CDT