Re: why aren't ORA-1555 errors MORE frequent?

From: Richard Kuhler <noone_at_nowhere.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Nov 2002 19:25:00 GMT
Message-ID: <gewC9.15096$2z1.6176523@twister.socal.rr.com>

"Howard J. Rogers" wrote:

<snip>

> > Interesting. You're saying that the cleanouts themselves have to be
> > written to a RBS? I can't envision any reason for this. Why is this
> > done? This also seems to imply that a pure SELECT could run out of
> > rollback, right?
>
> You can certainly get 1555s when no-one is doing anything other than pure
> selects, true enough. They are incredibly hard to demonstrate, however,
> being as rare as hen's teeth.
>
> Regards
> HJR
Actually, I was thinking that if the cleanouts have to be written to a RBS then the SELECT could actually get "ORA-1650 Unable to extend rollback segment" or similar, right?. More significantly, I'm trying to figure out why cleanouts would have to be written to a RBS to begin with.

Thanks,
Richard Kuhler Received on Tue Nov 19 2002 - 13:25:00 CST