Re: rman 10G

From: Sybrand Bakker <postbus_at_sybrandb.demon.nl>
Date: Thu, 18 May 2006 19:44:08 +0200
Message-ID: <ffcp62llfrch97fqgmvtsn23sn22n7opj6@4ax.com>

On Thu, 18 May 2006 16:42:57 +0400, "Vladimir M. Zakharychev" <bob--nospam--_at_dynamicpsp.com> wrote:

>
>"Lord'N'Master" <keithu1_at_yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1147949558.864613.253810_at_j55g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>> Your working with oracle ....so down ward compatibilty is no issue
>> unlike other Db's
>>
>I wish it really was so... Did you see the release compatibility
>matrix? Let alone changes in the optimizer and addition of
>new features (and bug fixes and new bugs) in each release
>and even patchset makes backwards compatibility in Oracle
>a feature highly desired but not provided...

The compatibility matrix is a good hint. However I strongly disagree with your assertion on Oracle not being downwards compatible. In fact it has always been. And then again: has Mickeysoft ever been downwards compatible? Oracle had to release patches when Mickeysoft released NT4 sp3, replacing Winsock1 with Winsock2 !!

--
Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA

Received on Thu May 18 2006 - 12:44:08 CDT