Re: Why still active? (was Re: lost of redo logs)

From: Jeff <jeff_at_work.com>
Date: Fri, 01 Mar 2002 13:52:53 GMT
Message-ID: <a5o13l$80v$2@cronkite.cc.uga.edu>

In article <a5o0kk$80v$1_at_cronkite.cc.uga.edu>, jeff_at_work.com (Jeff) wrote:

>sure why that is, since the archiver should backup the archive log immediately
>after the switch from current. Anyone know why that would be?

Looking at v$log, the still "active" log shows as being archived. So it's confusing that it remains so, given Oracle's definition of the "active" status, even after it's been archived. Received on Fri Mar 01 2002 - 07:52:53 CST

This message: [ Message body ]
Next message: Obnoxio The Clown: "Re: A searchable datastructure for represeting attributes?"
Previous message: Nuno Souto: "Re: A searchable datastructure for represeting attributes?"
In reply to: Jeff: "Why still active? (was Re: lost of redo logs)"
Next in thread: James A. Williams: "Re: Why still active? (was Re: lost of redo logs)"

Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ]

Original text of this message

HOME | ASK QUESTION | ADD INFO | SEARCH | E-MAIL US