Re: Oracle10g SQL
- From: Paul Drake <bdbafh@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Adam Donahue <adonahue@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 00:16:23 -0500
Adam,
If you count the number of one-off patchsets available for say lin32
post-10.1.0.3 as a good indication, I'd say that they've fixed quite a
few bugs in it. :)
Perhaps waiting for 10.1.0.4 would be wise if you have the choice.
Perhaps waiting for 10g R2 + first patchset would be even better.
Anything is better than running 7.3.4.5.1, 8.0.6.x, 8.1.6.3.x.
Most people would probably still be happy back on 8.1.7.4.x.
Large memory support actually working in 9.2 on win32 was enough
reason for us to go.
Paul
On Thu, 03 Mar 2005 00:06:13 -0500, Adam Donahue <adonahue@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Paul,
>
> When I get a little time tomorrow, I'll post the three apparent SQL bugs
> I've encountered in the last week alone. At this point my confidence in
> Oracle 10g is quickly declining. (Yes, laugh, laugh, that I had any
> confidence in a new Oracle release to begin with.) The main point of
> the post -- which apparently pissed more people off than it should have
> -- was to ask if there was any other anecdotal evidence out there that
> Oracle10g has some SQL-related problems (more so than any other new
> Oracle release I've used from Oracle 7.3 on).
>
> Adam
>
>
> Paul Drake wrote:
>
> >Adam,
> >
> >funny. we're migrating away from 9.2.0.6 to get to "things fixed in 10.1.0".
> >guess it depends upon how you look at it.
> >it sure beats waiting around for "when is 9.2.0.7 due out?" but will
> >inevitably lead to "when is 10.1.0.4 due out?".
> >
> >Paul
> >
> >
>
>
--
#/etc/init.d/init.cssd stop
# f=ma, divide by 1, convert to moles.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
