RE: ORA-1578...block corrupted...error is normal...a block...had a NOLOGGING...operation performed against
- From: "Mercadante, Thomas F (LABOR)" <Thomas.Mercadante@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <joelgarry@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 14:27:20 -0400
Except that he says he performed full backups subsequent to the "create
index...NOLOGGING" which is what you said he should have done.
If your assumption is true then a NOLOGGING option is never the correct
way to go (if I read your assumption correctly).
His latest reply now is that he may have done some *other* NOLOGGING
operations, and they may be the culprit and not the ones he mentioned
originally.
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Joel Garry
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 2:19 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: ORA-1578...block corrupted...error is normal...a
block...had a NOLOGGING...operation performed against
>Does the NOLOGGING attribute stay with the index after it has been
created? It doesn't, >correct?
Welllll...
Obviously, getting the error shows that it does. And perhaps reading
something into the 26040 error, it must be tracked by block, maybe
something in the Integrity Section at the beginning of the block... 10g
might be more informative
http://download-west.oracle.com/docs/cd/B14117_01/server.101/b10755/dynv
iews_1055.htm#REFRN30048
I'm also wondering if analyze...validate might tell us anything. Then
again, if this is expected behavior, would it be a misfeature if analyze
didn't pick it up?
Joel Garry
http://www.garry.to
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
