X-list: oracle-l
Return-Path: <oracle-l-bounce@freelists.org>
Subject: Re: multiple patchsets
From: Hemant K Chitale <hkchital@singnet.com.sg>
Message-id: 6.2.1.2.0.20060106232221.01fbf0f0@pop.singnet.com.sg
Date: 2006-01-06 16:27:23




&lt;rant and rave mode ON&gt;
All of which sounds ridiculous.  Going by that logic,  I should
not have applied
the CPU-Oct05 patch without having applied the CPU-Jul05 patch .... no ,
wait a minute,
I should have applied the CPU-Apr05 .. or even the CPU-Jan05 patch
...
How could they assume that we religiously apply every patchset ? 
How many
times in a year should I schedule downtime for the 24x7 ERP database ?

 If we could jump from 8.0.6.x  to 9.2.0.1,  surely we
could go from 9.2.0.1 to 9.2.0.6 or 
9.2.0.2 to 9.2.07.  The PatchSet README's DO SAY that they are
*cumulative* !
&lt;normal, hardworking DBA mode ON&gt;
oh well.  Before I apply the latest patchset I must look out for
alerts recommending,
pre-patch patches [and hope that the alerts have already been issued at
least the day
before I apply the patchset].
Hemant K Chitale
At 06:07 AM Friday, Paul Drake wrote:
On 1/5/06, Ray Stell
&lt;mailto:stellr@cns.vt.edu&gt;
wrote:


Concerning Solaris 64bit
<a href="http://9.2.0.4">9.2.0.4</a>.

I found this note that says I have to apply
<a href="http://9.2.0.6">9.2.0.6</a> before
<a href="http://9.2.0.7">9.2.0.7</a>.  



Ray,
That sounds quite familiar.
Originally, 9i R2 for lin_x86 was released as
<a href="http://9.2.0.3">9.2.0.3</a>.
It was later re-released as <a href="http://9.2.0.4">9.2.0.4</a>.
The <a href="http://9.2.0.5">9.2.0.5</a> patchset could not be applied to
<a href="http://9.2.0.3">9.2.0.3</a>. 
At the time, there was no note about it - it was simply a difference of
assumptions
(the patchset was produced with the assumption that
<a href="http://9.2.0.4">9.2.0.4</a> had been applied).



Hemant K Chitale
<a href="http://web.singnet.com.sg/~hkchital" eudora="autourl">
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~hkchital
</a>


--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l