Re: Oracle10g SQL

  • From: rjamya <rjamya@xxxxxxxxx>
  • To: adonahue@xxxxxxxxxxx
  • Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2005 07:01:56 -0500

I personally don't believe 10g is old enough to have gained "anecdotal
evidance" status, it is more like  ... "Whoa ... Didja ya just see
that?" phase.

But do tell us what you find ... and forget 10.1.0.4 .. the latest
mantra is 10gr2 isn't it?
Raj


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
> >
> >
> 
> --
> //www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
> 


-- 
------------------------------
select standard_disclaimer from company_requirements where category =
'MANDATORY';
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l

Other related posts: