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

On Jul 20, 5:26 pm, "Michel Cadot" <micadot{at}altern{dot}org> wrote:
> "Mark Townsend" <markbtowns..._at_sbcglobal.net> a écrit dans le message de news: 46A0C746.3000..._at_sbcglobal.net...| Noons wrote:
>
> | > On Jul 19, 12:35 pm, Mark Townsend <markbtowns..._at_sbcglobal.net>| > wrote:
>
> | >>> Nuno gave me bug 5092688.8
> | ...
> | >>
> | >> 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?
> | >
> |
> | Yes.
> |
> | You claimed that "Oracle continues to deliver new releases without
> | fixing first what are absolutely egregious bugs."
> |
> | You also stated that the database (?) "fails consistently for nearly 7
> | years and the "dedicated" folks do preciously NOTHING to fix problems
> | that have seen three major releases without a permanent fix"
> |
> | This concerns me. I asked you for some pointers to such problems so I
> | could investigate them.
> |
> | You told me offline to go pound sand.
> |
> | However, based on a posting on your blog, Jonathan offered 5092688.8 as
> | a potential example. You seemed to indicate that this was a correct example.
> |
> | However when I looked at the specific problem, it has been fixed within
> | 7 days of it being reported, it was fixed before 11g, it was not 7 years
> | old, and it has not been outstanding for three active releases.
> |
> | Nuno - you have our attention. I would love to have concrete examples of
> | what you are reporting in the forum. I can then assure you that any
> | such examples will be actively reviewed at the highest levels in
> | development.
> |
> | But you need to throw me a bone - give me a list of specific SRs or Bugs
> | that you think are indicative. I would love to remove as much as the
> | invective from this conversation as possible to get to a description of
> | a problem that is actionable.
>
> As you talk about a bone, here's one I found 2 days ago (SR6427362.992).
> It is closed as a duplicate of bug 2499608 opened on 06-AUG-2002 and
> never fixed.
>
> The description is the following one:
>
> <quote>
> When NLS_NUMERIC_CHARACTERS is not set to the default '.,'
> we get the following errors:
> SQL> alter session set nls_numeric_characters='!:';
>
> Session altered.
>
> SQL> select to_number('1,234','9,999') from dual;
> select to_number('1,234','9,999') from dual
> *
> ERROR at line 1:
> ORA-01722: invalid number
>
> SQL> select to_number('1,234','9,999.9') from dual;
> TO_NUMBER('1,234','9,999.9')
> ----------------------------
> 1234
>
> 1 row selected.
>
> First question: Why the error is reached in the first case?
> Second question: Then why it is not in the second one?
> </quote>
>
> OK, it's not a terrific bug, easy to workaround, but
> why 5 years without being fixed?
>
> Regards
> Michel

I found this example more an example of bad use of to_number (that should not be permit in my opinion), because i think it is ambiguous. I think that it should be used only with syntax select to_number('1,234','9G999') A FROM DUAL; as said on metalink note about the bug. I say this because i'm writing from italy where the comma is used to separate decimals and so the ambiguity is frequent. So i think it is normal to request at least to correct the problem with new release but to hope Oracle will release a patch only for this is too much.

Bye
 Cristian Cudizio

http://oracledb.wordpress.com
http://cristiancudizio.wordpress.com Received on Mon Jul 23 2007 - 05:15:15 CDT