Oracle FAQ Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid

Home -> Community -> Usenet -> c.d.o.server -> Re: here's a good one from dizwell on the recent product launch

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

From: Noons <>
Date: Thu, 19 Jul 2007 23:50:52 -0700
Message-ID: <>

On Jul 19, 12:35 pm, Mark Townsend <> wrote:
> > 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,
> > 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: (Server Patch Set)
> > Note the description - this means that if you are on
> > you MUST upgrade to or you MUST disable
> > all function based indexes. (There is currently no separate
> > patch reported for the problem).
> I looked this one up. Bug was found internally by the Peoplesoft
> regression testing, it was a regression introduced in and also
> found in Reported on 13th April, workaround in place on the
> 21st of April, patches provided and also fixed via the patchset
> mentioned. Basic problem is if a query is driving to a predicate based
> on a column, and a filter on the same column uses an FBI, and the query
> drives to a FFS, then there is a possibility of wrong results (too few
> rows), in these two releases only. I will check why you can't see the
> patches in Metalink.
> I don't think this is what Nuno is talking about

Let me see, Mark: I provide the bug
number to Jonathan and "this is not what I'm talking about"? Are you even
READING? Now: others may call it a "regression" in and If so,a regression to WHAT? An earlier manifestation of the same bug, isn't it?

Me, I prefer to call it a bug. And it negates the whole pointof using a database, if it causes the wrong resultset to be seen. And it has been around under another bug number, since 9i. And it is a bug on a feature that has been available since 8i: FBIs. All points that both you and Daniel have repeatedly ignored!

And like this one, there are at least two other enormous bugs that are not yet guaranteed of a fix, which I mentioned. I've hit them repeatedly in 9i and 10g. And every single time I opened a call with Metalick on them, only to be told they were "known problems" that would be fixed in and 11g.

Still haven't seen proof of it. Received on Fri Jul 20 2007 - 01:50:52 CDT

Original text of this message