Re: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- From: Mladen Gogala <mladen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 15:14:17 -0400
On 05/05/2004 12:59:47 PM, Pete Sharman wrote:
> The rule hint will still work but is unsupported.
>
It isn't! It does have my full moral support. Oracle names is, tragically,
not only unsupported, but gone, as in "no more".
--
Mladen Gogala
Oracle DBA
Note:
This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain confidential,
proprietary or legally privileged information. No confidentiality or privilege
is waived or lost by any mistransmission. If you receive this message in
error, please immediately delete it and all copies of it from your system,
destroy any hard copies of it and notify the sender. You must not, directly or
indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message
if you are not the intended recipient. Wang Trading LLC and any of its
subsidiaries each reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications
through its networks.
Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except
where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorized to state them
to be the views of any such entity.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com
----------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line.
--
Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
- References:
- RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- From: Pete Sharman
Other related posts:
- » Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » Re: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » Re: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » Re: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » Re: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » Re: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » Re: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » Re: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- » RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- From: Pete Sharman