Re: patch with no testing

cameron.cleland_at_ci.sj.ca.us (horse person) wrote:

>There are good reasons to patch even if there are no obvious problems.
> Oracle patch sets improve performance, protect against data
>corruption, fix incorrect results, solve memory leaks, improve
>security, etc, etc. So just because you are not receiving an error
>doesnt mean a patch shouldn't be applied.
>
>So I ask again: what is safer? running unpatched or patching without
>testing? To me it is safer to patch with no testing since the patches
>fix so many errors, and is thoroughly tested by oracle.

If the applications you use are custom-built by outside consultants ( or are modified of-the-shelf by consultants) they are usually certified for just 1 version of Oracle...If you change it ( even at a patch level) they may stop supporting it ( Like Oracle support does when you fail to keep patches up to the level they think you should - in spite of the fact that Oracle itself has older versions of its database in its production environment)..

With 24/7 systems, we cannot just take down the database because some obscure event has resulted in a patch from Oracle...

----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==---- http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =--- Received on Fri May 02 2003 - 11:53:49 CDT