Re: Unsupported Recovery Technique......?
Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2008 10:34:27 -0700 (PDT)
On Mar 19, 11:21 pm, sybra..._at_hccnet.nl wrote:
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 20:01:07 -0700 (PDT), mc..._at_hotmail.com wrote:
> >10g Release 2
> >I have cloned a 10.2.0.1 database onto a 10.2.0.3 home by using a cold
> >backup and recreating the controlfile. During the 'alter database
> >open resetlogs' the instance crashes because of the version mistmatch:
> >ORA-00704: bootstrap process failure
> >ORA-39700: database must be opened with UPGRADE option
> >Thu Mar 20 02:46:27 2008
> >I then run:
> >startup mount
> >alter database open upgrade
> >and then upgrade the database to 10.2.0.3 with
> >Everything appears OK.
> >My question is....... is this a supported procedure..? Is there a
> >danger that the database is corrupted in some way after performing
> >this restore/upgrade step together....?
> >Incidentally, I also used this technique to restore an RMAN backup
> >from 10.2.0.1 to 10.2.0.3 and used exactly the same technique (alter
> >database open upgrade). This also seemed to work fine but is it a
> >supported/stable approach..?
> This is a rhetorical question.
> This approach is obviously not described in the release notes for
> As Metalink is run by minions, who take the provided documentation as
> their sole gospel, this procedure is not supported.
> Sybrand Bakker
> Senior Oracle DBA
$ oerr ora 39700
39700, 00000, "database must be opened with UPGRADE option" // *Cause: A normal database open was attempted, but the database has not
// been upgraded to the current server version. // *Action: Use the UPGRADE option when opening the database to run // catupgrd.sql (for database upgrade), or to run catalog.sql // and catproc.sql (after initial database creation).
That would be in metalink too. Perhaps the place to ask if it is supported is metalink.
See Note:316889.1 Notice that before step 30, everything is just being sure you have a backup and making sure all the settings are correct. Then step 31 doesn't apply doing the OP's minor conversion. So it boils down to what the OP did, and whether that is supported becomes either "yes, it's a manual upgrade" or a semantics argument (unless bdbafh hit on something with the compatible parameter).
Of course, whether it will actually work is dependent on bugs. Can't predict much about that, though we assume there are none unless otherwise painfully found.
-- @home.com is bogus. http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/95q1/compnightmares.htmlReceived on Thu Mar 20 2008 - 12:34:27 CDT