Return-Path: Received: from ensim.rackshack.net (root@localhost) by orafaq.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gB2HjDU12103 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:45:13 -0600 X-ClientAddr: 209.68.248.164 Received: from newsfeed.cts.com (newsfeed.cts.com [209.68.248.164]) by ensim.rackshack.net (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id gB2HjD312098 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 11:45:13 -0600 Received: from fatcity.UUCP (uucp@localhost) by newsfeed.cts.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with UUCP id GAA07706; Mon, 2 Dec 2002 06:26:23 -0800 (PST) Received: by fatcity.com (26-Feb-2001/v1.0g-b72/bab) via UUCP id 0050FBFA; Mon, 02 Dec 2002 05:44:00 -0800 Message-ID: Date: Mon, 02 Dec 2002 05:44:00 -0800 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L X-Comment: Oracle RDBMS Community Forum X-Sender: Sender: root@fatcity.com Reply-To: ORACLE-L@fatcity.com Errors-To: ML-ERRORS@fatcity.com From: Subject: RE: patches Organization: Fat City Network Services, San Diego, California X-ListServer: v1.0g, build 72; ListGuru (c) 1996-2001 Bruce A. Bergman Precedence: bulk Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit I think I veer towards Yechiel's view here Patrice. I am not sure I have ever heard anyone suggest applying all outstanding relevant patches to a database however much you test first. (To be honest you are not advocating that, just raising the question). Normal policy wherever I have worked is not to patch unless absolutely necessary. Another point is that 1 patch can provide a new code piece of binary and patches are not cumulative. Therefore applying patch a then patch b could well mean that patch a is overwritten and yet your documentation indicates that it has been installed. HTH John -----Original Message----- Sent: 02 December 2002 12:54 To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Yechiel, If that's your philosophy, and there are known unpatched bugs in the server software, how can you be 100 percent sure it will stay up? Granted, many of these bugs are esoteric, but not all. I am curious what Oracle Support consultants do when they have a 24x7 contract, with all these patches. Surely they have a list. Regards, Patrice Boivin Systems Analyst (Oracle Certified DBA) [Boivin, Patrice J] -----Original Message----- Sent: Friday, November 29, 2002 3:49 AM To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L We only apply patches as needed and where needed. For example: I had a problem with export taking a long time on one system. I installed a patch for this problem (after testing in test environment of course) only on that database. My motto is: If it ain't broken do not fix it. I have seen too many follow up fixes to install something I do not need. Yechiel Adar Mehish ----- Original Message ----- To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L Sent: Wednesday, November 27, 2002 9:05 PM I am wondering how your sites handle patching production servers. I just did a search in MetaLink, since 8174 was released there have been 48 patches (if I just select RDBMS). If I select other items in my search, I get upwards of 70 additional bug fixes. How do high reliability sites handle patching? I assume they would rather fix potential problems (testing the patches on a testbed of course) rather than just apply bug fixes as problems are encountered on production servers. regards, Patrice Boivin Systems Analyst (Oracle Certified DBA) -- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com -- Author: