Re: Validating Flashback Database
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2008 10:54:36 -0700 (PDT)
On Jun 20, 1:37 pm, DA Morgan <damor..._at_psoug.org> wrote:
> joel garry wrote:
> > On Jun 19, 7:25 pm, mc..._at_hotmail.com wrote:
> >> Anyone actually using flashback database out there....? Or did I
> >> chose a boring topic..?
> >> Matt
> > A very interesting topic, actually. I personally don't have any
> > experience with it, so I'm not qualified to comment. I certainly
> > agree with the sentiment about looking at new features with a critical
> > eye, but I wouldn't want to stop anyone from gaining experience with
> > it. Just because a gazillion people have used something doesn't mean
> > your particular configuration won't have issues, either.
> > I suspect the answer to #2 is that Oracle patches also include
> > executable components, so you might have issues. Don't the patches
> > have a documented unpatch?
> > My own view is paranoia isn't enough. Always have a way out when you
> > are responsible for production upgrades, preferably so you can fix
> > stuff before anyone notices you screwed up.
> > jg
> > --
> > @home.com is bogus.
> > "We were supposed to have 3 days of vendor demos, but so many pulled
> > out it's just one day now. JDE called and said 'we don't have
> > anything for your requirements'" - overheard in fast casual
> > restaurant. I don't know how I keep quiet.
> I use flashback database frequently and often.
> Not for Oracle patches ... but rather for application patching and
Thanks for the feedback. I would also suggest searching the metalink bug database for "flashback database" (with the quotes.) I'd be worried about standby configurations, or anything not on the latest Oracle db version, and maybe anything that has ever been PITR'd or upgraded from an earlier db version (as opposed to imp/exp). Funny how those Oracle products like JD Edwards take a while to be certified on the latest db version.
(Also search All Sources in the knowledgebase for 6768069 - oddly enough, that finds something, apparantly a RAC/Standby patch conflict, that I, at least, am not allowed to see:
Hdr: 6768069 VERSION-220.127.116.11 CATEGORY-RDBMS UTILITY_VERSION-18.104.22.168
SUB_COMPONENT-FLASHBACK_DB STATUS-80 PUB-N PRODID-5 PORTID-46
Fix for bug Bug# 6768069 conflicts with bug# 5933838 on GSIAT. Filed Bug# 6890523: MERGE LABEL REQUEST ON TOP OF 10.2.0.3 FOR BUGS 6768069
But I admit again, I don't have the experience to really advise about flashback or RAC.
-- @home.com is bogus. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080621/news_1b21msft.htmlReceived on Mon Jun 23 2008 - 12:54:36 CDT