Re: Help required on Data Guard

DA Morgan wrote:
> Howard J. Rogers wrote:
>

>> Access wrote:
>>
>>> Peace brothers ;-)
>>
>>
>>
>> Nature abhors a vaccuum, and on the same principle, I dislike most of 
>> Daniel's posts of late: they are empty of actual, factual content. 
>> That is not the same thing as war, however.
>>
>> HJR

It's reserved for you because neither of the others have spent the past few days participating in a partitioning thread without actually understanding the feature that was specifically being discussed. It is reserved for you because neither of the others have claimed that RAC is "without question" the High Availaiability solution du jour. It is reserved for you, because no-one else makes such crass generalisations without even batting an eyelid. No-one else says Data Guard is NOT a high availability solution, period. No-one else says global indexes are pointless without qualifaction. It is reserved for you because neither of the others are arrogant enough to seek to shut down a discussion on the grounds that the "right" answer has already been given and by spinning it out, I'm just riding on testosterone. And neither of the others have also claimed that I never apologise for mistakes made. And I could go on, but you get the general idea.

> It is not that you are not right the vast majority of the time.

I am not here to be right. That's where you and your ego get their knickers in a twist. Oracle is Oracle, and all I seek to do is understand it better, and maybe help others understand it better.

Which is why, however, I get seriously tweaked when someone who doesn't understand it very well seeks to impede others understanding it. Which you've done over the past four years by posting trite put-downs mixed with vapourous nonfactuals.

Think Hippocrates: "First, do no harm". Posts which tell people "forget Data Guard, you need RAC", without discussing the issues, do harm. Posts which say "the article is rubbish because it compares cold failover with RAC" without any details, do harm. Posts which tell people to forget global indexes without any qualifying details do harm. You, Daniel, do harm, time and time again.

> It
> is rather than your responses are often 90% attitude ... 10% aptitude.

You are in precisely no position to judge my response to anything.

How anyone can contribute a number of posts to a thread and only on the last one announce "Oh, I didn't know what the feature you are discussing actually existed", I shall never know, though it is curiously in character for you.

I don't know what percentages that equates to, but it must be something like 50% put down, 40% trivia, 10% sheer ignorance, with only trace quantities of actual insight.

It has always been thus. It's only just now that I've had enough of it to finally call a spade a spade.

Now, since our discussion appears to distract others, I suggest we leave it there. You brush up your Oracle skills, and your posting skills, and I won't have occasion to point out their deficiencies in the future. But the next sweeping generalisation you make on no basis whatsoever, count on me to point it out. Do no harm, Daniel.

HJR Received on Sun Nov 21 2004 - 19:04:32 CST