Re: here's a good one from dizwell on the recent product launch

"DA Morgan" <damorgan_at_psoug.org> wrote in message news:1184640427.944021_at_bubbleator.drizzle.com...
>
> I've yet to see you mention a single problem though I've invited
> you to do so.
>
> Rather than spitting into the wind pick the three bugs that bug
> you the most and send me code that will demo the problem.
>

In reply to a comment on a recent blog entry http://dbasrus.blogspot.com/2007/07/vs-b-grand-final.html

Nuno gave me bug 5092688.8

The detail on Metalink is as follows:

This bug is marked as an important issue. Versions confirmed as being affected 10.1.0.5, 10.2.0.2 Description: Wrong results are possible if a function based index exists on a table used in a query.
Workaround: Set "_disable_function_based_index"=TRUE Fixed in: 10.2.0.3 (Server Patch Set)

Note the description - this means that if you are on 10.2.0.2 you MUST upgrade to 10.2.0.3 or you MUST disable all function based indexes. (There is currently no separate patch reported for the problem).

If Oracle has managed to patch the problem (in a full release), why can't they describe the problem properly so that we can decide whether to patch it or ignore it as irrelevant. And why should I believe that a full patch release isn't going to introduce other problems on my system - I just want to fix the problem I know I have.

Given the nature of many large organisations today - how often do you think people would notice if they got results which were a 'little bit' wrong ? How many people run reports and create screens which have guaranteed consistency checks built in so that a wrong answer has to appear twice in exactly the same way before it can get past audit ?

-- 
Regards

Jonathan Lewis
http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com

Author: Cost Based Oracle: Fundamentals
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/cbo_book/ind_book.html

The Co-operative Oracle Users' FAQ
http://www.jlcomp.demon.co.uk/faq/ind_faq.html