Tru64 5.1A. 12 CPU box. Two different instances on the box.
> -Original Message-
>
> Hi!
>
> Which platform is it? I checked on one 4CPU Linux server with
> 160MB shared
> pool it defaulted to 1.
>
> Tanel.
>
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author
Hi!
Which platform is it? I checked on one 4CPU Linux server with 160MB shared
pool it defaulted to 1.
Tanel.
- Original Message -
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, September 13, 2003 1:49 AM
>
> On the 9.2.0.3 databases I checked, it is 3.
On the 9.2.0.3 databases I checked, it is 3.
> -Original Message-
>
> Can't get my hands oon 9.2.0.2 or 0.3, but in 0.4 (on Windows), the
> _kghsidx_count defaults to 1 anyway, check it out on your systems.
>
> Tanel.
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
A
And for you cobol users out there:
we have been told that the bug related to setting
cursor_sharing=force
when using cobol has been fixed in 9.2.0.4.
So maybe that will help keep the 4031 bug in its box.
--
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.net
--
Author: Stephen Lee
INE
Stephen,
Surely, you must be mistaken. I just finished reading the Oracle 10G
article in the latest Oracle magazine about how they "regression test" every
little change made to the Oracle Rdbms code to ensure that bugs do not make
it out into production.
It *can't be* their fault. It *has to be
There is a known bug in Oracle's handling of the shared pool in 9.2.0.X (at
least) where the shared pool becomes increasingly fragmented and eventually
gets to where no more space can be allocated. Attempts to flush the shared
pool to clear it fail (Yes, I know this means everything has to be
re-
,
> Ruth
>
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
> Stephen Lee
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 5:29 PM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: 9.2.0.4 anyone
>
>
>
> Oh yeah, I forgot
Thanks, Tanel. You always provide good solution.
From: "Tanel Poder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 9.2.0.4 anyone
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2003 07:14:24 -0800
It's a hidden parame
ED]>
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 5:59 PM
> How can I not see the init parameter, _kghdsidx_count in 9.2.0.3.0?
>
>
> >From: "Tanel Poder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Subject: RE: 9.2.0.4 anyone
Oh yeah, I forgot to say that in 9.2.0.3 the shared pool was
broken up into
"heaps" (Oracle terminology) but whatever fancy stuff they were trying to
accomplish by doing this (I think part of the magical
How can I not see the init parameter, _kghdsidx_count in 9.2.0.3.0?
From: "Tanel Poder" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: 9.2.0.4 anyone
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:54:30 -0800
Hi!
>
> been told).
Can't get my hands oon 9.2.0.2 or 0.3, but in 0.4 (on Windows), the
_kghsidx_count defaults to 1 anyway, check it out on your systems.
Tanel.
>
> > -Original Message-
> > From: Stephen Lee
> > Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 11:39 AM
> > To: Mu
Title: RE: 9.2.0.4 anyone
Parameter name "_kghdsidx_count", default in 9.2.0.3 is 1, description "max kghdsidx count".
Do not know what it is for.
Alex.
-Original Message-
From: Stephen Lee [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003
2003 11:39 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: 9.2.0.4 anyone
>
>
>
> Initial testing indicates that the bug(s) that caused index
> create/rebuild
> online to lock a table and then get permanently stuck in a
> hung state have
> been fixed.
&
Initial testing indicates that the bug(s) that caused index create/rebuild
online to lock a table and then get permanently stuck in a hung state have
been fixed.
It looks like 9.2.0.4 does NOT fix the problem of fatal 4031 situations that
can only be cleared by restarting the instance. So you ar
Oracle9.2.0.4 on Windows.
I installed it yesterday and upgraded my test database, with OID, and it
worked fine.
It is available since 15AUG2003.
Yechiel Adar
Mehish
- Original Message -
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 12:2
h Inc, Sussex, WI USA
> -Original Message-
> From: Tanel Poder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 10:30 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: Re: 9.2.0.4 anyone
>
>
> Hi!
>
> I wouldn't call it a real negat
Hi!
I wouldn't call it a real negative experience, but:
C:\Work\Oracle>sqlplus "admin/admin"
SQL*Plus: Release 9.2.0.4.0 - Production on N Sep 11 17:21:59 2003
Copyright (c) 1982, 2002, Oracle Corporation. All rights reserved.
Connected to:
Oracle9i Enterprise Edition Release 9.2.0.4.0 - Pr
/Tech Inc, Sussex, WI USA
> -Original Message-
> From: Mercadante, Thomas F [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 7:39 AM
> To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
> Subject: RE: 9.2.0.4 anyone
>
>
> Robert,
>
> you say &q
Linking issues with installing 9.2.0.4 patch on HP/UX...
Had migrated a 8.1.7 database inplace to 9.2.0.2 whcih went fine and went to
apply 9.2.0.4 patchset and the relink splattered all over the place. Patch
requirments were vauge at best and found a list of required OS patches on
HP's tech site
Just 2 minor ones on the
upgrade so far - it had to have the compatible init parameter set - otherwise it
tried to default to Ora 8 and I am using LMT's so it complained. Also I had a
problem with the listener not being able to connect, so I deleted and recreated
a new one - everything worked
Robert,
you say "yet" like you are expecting problems? :)
Tom Mercadante
Oracle Certified Professional
-Original Message-
Sent: Wednesday, September 10, 2003 6:24 PM
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Anyone have any negative experiences with 9.2.0.4 yet?
Robert
--
Please see
Where?
I can only see 9.2.0.2 on the otn download site..
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: 11 September 2003
01:20To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject:
Re: 9.2.0.4 anyoneYeah,
been out for
9.2.0.4 is a patchset - go to Patches section in
metalink.
Tanel.
- Original Message -
From:
Mark
Leith
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 1:59
PM
Subject: RE: 9.2.0.4 anyone
Where? I can only see 9.2.0.2 on
cc:
Subject: Re: 9.2.0.4 anyone
What? 9.2.0.4 is out now?
RWB
Reginald W. Bailey
IBM Global Services - ETS SW GDSD - Database Management
Your Friendly N
Where?
I can only see 9.2.0.2 on the otn download site..
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]Sent: 11 September 2003
01:20To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-LSubject:
Re: 9.2.0.4 anyoneYeah,
been out for
Yeah, been out for some time now actually.
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent by: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
09/10/2003 04:25 PM
Please respond to ORACLE-L
To: Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
cc:
Subject: Re: 9.2.0.4
What? 9.2.0.4 is out now?
RWB
Reginald W. Bailey
IBM Global Services - ETS SW GDSD - Database Management
Your Friendly Neighborhood DBA
713-216-7703 (Office) 281-798-5474 (Mobile) 713-4
Now that you speak about TOAD I remember that I get ORA-01460: unimplemented
or unreasonable conversion requested in Toads schema browser. But I'm not
using it much anyway, thus don't care...
Tanel.
- Original Message -
To: "Multiple recipients of list ORACLE-L" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent
I can get TOAD to hang almost consistently, but that may be the RAC part of
9.2.0.4 or my 9.2.0.1 client. I also (still) have a fervent dislike of the
DBCA's mangling of given parameters -- even when it doesn't go off into
la-la land (it hangs at "Initializing..." about 50% of the time). Other
th
30 matches
Mail list logo
