RE: infoworld call
- From: "Taylor, Chris David" <ChrisDavid.Taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: "'jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <jonathan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx'" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 20 Jan 2012 13:17:59 -0600
Jonathan,
Can you clarify what you meant about 'your only protection'. I didn't quite
follow that piece.
Thanks!
Chris Taylor
Sr. Oracle DBA
Ingram Barge Company
Nashville, TN 37205
"Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of intelligent effort."
-- John Ruskin (English Writer 1819-1900)
CONFIDENTIALITY NOTICE: This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and
may also be privileged. If you are not the named recipient, please notify the
sender immediately and delete the contents of this message without disclosing
the contents to anyone, using them for any purpose, or storing or copying the
information on any medium.
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jonathan Lewis
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 11:03 AM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: infoworld call
Raising the limit to 2^64 won't help unless they also remove the feature that
allows you to set the current SCN to an arbitrary multiple of 2^32, or scale up
the number of SCN increments so that a "genuine" job can't possibly make them
happen fast enough.
My laptop can advance the SCN about 150,000 times per second - which means it
will take slightly less than 8 hours to get through 4 billion - which means
that's the longest time it will take for me to prepare my laptop to be a
threat. Your only protection comes from knowing confident that your system
can't increment the SCN faster than Oracle's limiting rate because I have to
start by injecting a value that is "behind" a critical value and let you run on
from there.
Regards
Jonathan Lewis
http://jonathanlewis.wordpress.com
Oracle Core (Apress 2011)
http://www.apress.com/9781430239543
----- Original Message -----
From: "Allen, Brandon" <Brandon.Allen@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <dedba@xxxxxxxxxx>; <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, January 20, 2012 3:46 PM
Subject: RE: infoworld call
They do indicate that this is in the plans at the bottom of MOS 1376995.1
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of De DBA
<snip>
I would like to think that the hard limit in future versions will be put at
a bit higher than a 48-bit integer...
<snip>
________________________________
Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message or
attachments hereto. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do
not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions,
conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the
official business of this company shall be understood as neither given nor
endorsed by it.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
-----
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 2012.0.1901 / Virus Database: 2109/4754 - Release Date: 01/19/12
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
