Re: backup without archivelog mode

I wouldn't call this a technical discussion. You want to pick a fight over two three-letter words.

What an important poster you are to have made that *awfully* clever point.

I'm sure it helped our original poster immensely. Well done.

HJR

--
----------------------------------------------
Resources for Oracle: http://www.hjrdba.com
===============================


"Sean M" <smckeown_at_earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3C9E12B8.5D191B41_at_BACKSIESearthlink.net...


> "Howard J. Rogers" wrote:

> >

> > Let's not.

> >

> > You can carry on what-iffing and making exceptions here, there and

> > everywhere.  It really is very tedious.

>

> Look, Howard, we're having a technical discussion here.  It's a 2-way

> street.  There's no need for the personal commentary.  If you find our

> discussion tedious, then stop posting.

>

> > If you can't see the difference

> > between having to type

> > insert into emp(7274,'Smith','Clerk',7382,1700.95,120.75,10)

> >

> > ...where you have to resupply every piece of information, and

> > having to type

> >

> > create index blah on emp(ename);

> >

> > ...where the source data for the index is readily available without

> > user specification, then I'm not pursuing the subject with you,

> > because you are just being awkward.

>

> Of course I see the difference.  Do you?  It's apples and oranges - DML

> vs. DDL.  Of course they are different.  If you wanted to show a

> legitmate apples to apples comparison that pertains to our discussion,

> you'd need to compare your insert example to the equivalent direct load

> (nologging) insert.  Both could be scripted, drawing data from another

> source, and both could be fat-fingered (requiring the need to re-key the

> data).

>

> Or compare 2 identical SQL*Loader jobs - one logged, the other direct.

> Both are "recoverable" under your definition by simply re-running them.

> But they are very different in the eyes of Oracle's recovery mechanism.

>

> > Yes, anyone can keep a record on a piece of paper about the insert

> > into EMP.  So yes, it's not just in their head.  But do they have

> > to re-key the data?  Yes. Does anyone have to re-key the data

> > inserted by SQL Loader?  Or by an index creation?  No.  So there

> > you go, yet again, seizing on a specific set of words and totally

> > missing the actual point being made.

>

> I'm not missing your point, I just don't agree with it.  Again, the

> source of the data has nothing to do with it's recoverability at an

> Oracle level.  Oracle can recover it only if it was logged to the redo

> stream (or if you take a backup of the affected datafiles after the

> nologging transaction).  Could you recover it by other means?  Maybe,

> maybe not, but the answer is irrelevant to my point.

>

> > In case anyone missed it, the original point was that archivelog

> > guarantees recoverability of transactions, not mandates a

> > particular backup strategy.

>

> But what you originally *wrote* (and then tried to defend with a

> definition of "recoverable" that didn't pertain to Oracle) was that

> "Archivelog mode simply means that you can guarantee recoverability of

> *all* transactions" [my emphasis added].  That statement is false as it

> does not account for nologging transactions, which could have been very

> misleading to the person to whom you were giving advice.  My point was

> simple - you needed to be more careful with your wording.

>

> Regards,

> Sean