Re: Help required on Data Guard

From: Howard J. Rogers <hjr_at_dizwell.com>
Date: Wed, 01 Dec 2004 09:56:08 +1100
Message-ID: <41acfa8e$0$20379$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>

Joel Garry wrote:

> Well of course I was oversimplifying for the OP, but I didn't say the
> files were copied over. Your quibble is correct. But they do wind up
> there, right?

Well, it depends how quibbly you want to get! No, they don't at the highest level of quibblesomeness. A *facsimile* of them ends up on the remote database. A *replica* of them. A *clone*, perhaps. Call it what you will. But "they" don't actually move or get moved *themselves*...

But yes, I know what you meant.

If your original sentence had been "Data Guard uses redo to replicate transactions" I wouldn't have quibbled in the slightest.

>I have to be careful about talking about FAL, because
> I'll start ranting about how it doesn't work the way one would hope,
> ie, up until latter-day 9i's, a network error can kick back through
> the FAL process and stuff your production instance bigtime.

Entirely agree. I think we've had this discussion before: I tell people how it's supposed to work. I leave the minor buggy nigglies to their own practical experience and their ability to read Metalink.

Regards
HJR Received on Tue Nov 30 2004 - 16:56:08 CST