Re: er, 'interesting' new 9i feature

"Sean M" <smckeownNO_at_BACKSIESearthlink.net> wrote in message news:3D35D82E.FF4DDB42_at_BACKSIESearthlink.net...
> "Howard J. Rogers" wrote:
> >
> > Have you noticed that backup controlfile to trace now outputs a
tracefile
> > containing the 'create controlfile' stuff *twice*? Once with the word
> > 'noresetlogs' attached. And once with the word 'resetlogs'. No other
> > differences detectable.
>
> There are 2 other differences in the two statements: 1) the alter
> database open command differs by the word resetlogs (not just the create
> controlfile statement) and 2) the recover database command does not
> contain the "using backup controlfile" clause for the noresetlogs case.
> So I guess I can understand why they allow for both scenarios since the
> does differ a bit more than just the "no". I don't feel really strongly
> either way actually.

True. I kinda meant, when one does the removal of 'no', one usually remembers to add the word 'resetlogs' lower down in the script too... like vegemite and toast, you wouldn't have the one without the other, and I'd sort of expect anyone doing a resetlogs to know that. But fair enough, it *is* more than just two letters.

>
> > This is happening in 9i R2, and it occurs to me that I don't think it
> > happened in 9i R1... but was wondering if anyone could check for me?
>
> Yes, you're correct, this is a new R2 feature - didn't happen like this
> in R1.
>
> > Quite what was wrong with editing out the two letters "no", like we used
to
> > in earlier versions, I have no idea. I can already smell the confusion
users
> > are going to get themselves into using the new, improved version.
>
> Yeah, might prove a bit difficult to explain to newbies, but I think I
> understand the intent, if not the execution, of the change. Seems like
> they could just force you to add the word 'resetlogs' or 'noresetlogs'
> when you do your 'alter database backup controlfile to trace' command
> instead of letting it default. That way you'd know what kind of script
> you're generating. Instead they give you both. Eh. I suppose as long
> as I don't have to teach people about it, I'm OK with it. (Sorry
> Howard.) :)
>
> Now, what I really don't understand is that they only managed to change
> the comment character in certain places within the script, but not all.
> There's still a bunch of #'s instead of -- 's. #'s are great if you're
> still using svrmgrl and 8.0.5, but this is 9i folks! SQLPLUS likes --
> 's. They only seemed to fix this in a few places, not the whole .trc
> file. OK, minor nitpick, but still... if you're going to fix it, then
> why not fix it everywhere!
>

And that was going to be my next comment! (Beat me to the punch!). Exactly.... I dislike an immensely important script throwing up errors for no good reason at a critical time (ie, just when you're trying to recover all your control files).

Regards
HJR
> Thanks for lettting me rant,
> Sean M
Received on Wed Jul 17 2002 - 16:47:30 CDT