Fwd: Dataguard setup at DR site

  • From: Kumar Madduri <ksmadduri@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:32:01 -0700

I understand this aspect of corruption. But if I can afford to have
that corruption (in the sense that I can afford to rebuild those
objects), can I not enable force logging in data guard implementation
and still have a working model with the caveat that objects with
nologging would be corrupted on the standby and I should be prepared
to rebuild them when I open the standby.


---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Mark Strickland <strickland.mark@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM
Subject: Re: Dataguard setup at DR site
To: howard.latham@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: ksmadduri@xxxxxxxxx, Oracle-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxx


If you don't force logging in the primary and you have non-logged
transactions in the primary, those transactions will not get to the
standby (because they're not in the logs, of course) and you'll have
physical (or is it logical?) corruption in the standby.  However, you
won't know it until you open the standby and try to query tables where
transactions are missing.  That's why forced logging is a prerequisite
for setting up a physical standby.

Learned this one the hard way.

-Mark


On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:48 PM, Howard Latham <howard.latham@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> DG evolved from 'log shipping' and need not exist now. It does provide extra 
> features and it does TRY and manage
> everything for you but you can have a 'data guard' setup without dataguard. I 
> was tld itit sorts out network failures etc for you and
> probaly the tools it gives you are worth it. I imagine that auditors might 
> prefer a proper DG setup ?
>
> Coments anyone?
>
>
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l


Other related posts: