Richard Foote wrote:
> "Frank van Bortel" <fvanbortel_at_netscape.net> wrote in message
> news:ctt3dm$6st$1_at_news3.zwoll1.ov.home.nl...
>
>>Cris Carampa wrote:
>>
>>>Frank van Bortel wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>svrmgrl <<eof
>>>>connect internal
>>>>shutdown abort
>>>>startup
>>>>shutdown immediate
>>>>exit
>>>
>>>
>>>Isn't that somewhat "dangerous"? (note the double quotes) What's wrong
>>>with a simple "shutdown immediate"? I use it on a 9.0.1 database every
>>>night since more than three years and I never experienced any hung.
>>>
>>>Kind regards,
>>>
>>
>>What dangers would lurk?
>>
>>And there's nothing *wrong* with a shutdown immediate, but
>>it will wait for active transactions to end, which is not
>>always feasible.
>>
>
>
> Hi Frank
>
> Actually, a shutdown immediate doesn't wait for active transactions to end
> (that's the transactional option) but will "immediate"ly stop the active
> transactions and wait for the *rollback* to end.
>
> Cheers
>
> Richard
>
>
I stand corrected - thanks.
And rollbacks can take a while...
--
Regards,
Frank van Bortel
Received on Thu Feb 03 2005 - 08:24:15 CST
