Re: known bugs in 10.2.0.1 on aix 64bit
From: Gerard H. Pille <ghp_at_skynet.be>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:26:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4c8fbe5f$0$5277$ba620e4c_at_news.skynet.be>
Gerard H. Pille wrote:
> Can someone tell me about a bug in 10.2.0.1, which would cause excessive
> undo with heavy dml on ASSM tablespaces? I found mention of this bug in
> a post dating back to 2006, but no number.
>
> I think this bug would be a good reason for upgrading, an application
> used by my employer does excessive dml, and until today, I didn't
> realize a more recent version could provide better performance.
>
> Any other reasons for leaving 10.2.0.1 behind are also very welcome.
> Should we go for 10.2.0.4 or 10.2.0.5 immediately?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gerard
>
Date: Tue, 14 Sep 2010 20:26:40 +0200
Message-ID: <4c8fbe5f$0$5277$ba620e4c_at_news.skynet.be>
Gerard H. Pille wrote:
> Can someone tell me about a bug in 10.2.0.1, which would cause excessive
> undo with heavy dml on ASSM tablespaces? I found mention of this bug in
> a post dating back to 2006, but no number.
>
> I think this bug would be a good reason for upgrading, an application
> used by my employer does excessive dml, and until today, I didn't
> realize a more recent version could provide better performance.
>
> Any other reasons for leaving 10.2.0.1 behind are also very welcome.
> Should we go for 10.2.0.4 or 10.2.0.5 immediately?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Gerard
>
ah, on supporthtml.oracle.com, I found 3610777 and 4288876, but one thing bothers me, about the fix for 4288876:
Note: The fix for this bug introduces a potentially serious
problem as described in bug 4597251. It is advisable
for any customer with a one off patch for this bug
(4288876) to replace it by the fix for bug 4597251 .
where there is talk of block corruption. I prefer lesser performance to block corruption. Would I run this risk with one of the more recent versions? Received on Tue Sep 14 2010 - 13:26:40 CDT