| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
 |
 | |||
| Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid | |
|
| |||
Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: standby delay
Comments embedded.
Charles J. Fisher wrote:
> On Tue, 1 Mar 2005, Sybrand Bakker wrote:
>
> > >Under 8i, I've implemented a simple script to hold the standby at
a 4-hour
> > >window in the past (measured from the arrival of a compressed
archived
> > >log), so an "ALTER DATABASE OPEN READ ONLY" lets me fish out
accidentally
> > >deleted objects (and the like).
>
> > >Who needs 9i flashback? :)
>
> > Evidently you don't know flashback has nothing to do with standby
(aka
> > Dataguard)
> > And Dataguard comes for free with 9i.
>
> Evidently you are a complete dolt.
>
Not knowing your situation (why you're still using 8.1.7 instead of at least 9.2.0) I'll reserve comment. However it probably would not be a great stretch to say the same comment could apply to you.
> Flashback gives you the power to execute queries against the database
AS
> IT APPEARED IN THE PAST. Opening a standby in read only mode also
gives
> you this ability.
>
Not necessarily; you have rigged a way to provide that sort of output from YOUR standby database, however a traditional standby database usually lags the source only by the time required for a log switch plus the copy time to the archivelog destinations plus the time to apply the changes. Without outside manipulation (which you're apparently done) you'd be very hard pressed to duplicate Flashback performance with a standby/DataGuard database, even by opening it in read-only mode. You cannot, with a normal standby/DataGuard configuration, anticipate dropped objects and, in the blink of an eye open your standby database read only to preserve the dropped object without some man-handling of the process; Flashback gives you exactly that option, and only depends upon how long of a period you choose for your undo retention and the size of your UNDO tablespace.
> > So who needs crappy home-grown scripts? In fact you don't even need
> > them in 8i. Standby database works!
>
> While I will refrain from describing your general outlook as
"crappy," I will
> say that you demonstrate a profound combination of arrogance and
stupidity.
>
Arrogance, possibly, although I'd probably attribute such to frustration with people trying to re-invent the wheel; stupidity is most certainly *NOT* an issue with Sybrand Bakker.
> > And 9i implements logical standby and delays so you scripts are
fully
> ^^^
> > redundant in 9i, unless you insist to retain Oracle 7 solutions
forever.
>
> If your SQL is as bad as your grammar, it's a wonder that you've any
data left.
>
As Sybrand is Dutch it's highly likely English is NOT his first language. Now who is showing their stupidity?
> > Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
>
> What a lucky organization that must be.
>
I should think so. Possibly you should seriously reconsider your flippant remarks.
>
/
>
David Fitzjarrell Received on Mon Mar 07 2005 - 09:37:47 CST
 |
 |