Re: Patch 9.2.07 for Linux
- From: Nuno Souto <dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 23:36:53 +1000
Kevin Closson apparently said,on my timestamp of 26/08/2005 3:26 AM:
Most of the new architectural features in 10g are features Oracle Corp
needs you to have. The difference is not subtle.
I hear what you saying and partly agree. Everyone knows I for one have
been quite vocal of late on the issue of stability. Where I disagree
here is that I think many of the 10g features are quite important and
relevant.
However (there is always one!), given the paltry state of implementation
of many of the 9ir2 features, 4 (four!) years AFTER the blessed thing has
been out, would I risk going to 10? No bloody way! I'll let someone
else do the "bleeding edge tango" this time around.
And I'm not even touching on the stability of patches like 9.2.0.6. All
I want is for the darn features supposed to be in 9i to work as advertised.
Like for example: why is it that I get ora-600s when I create a large
compressed index on a very large concatenated key? Why is it that I
can't validate a UK on a 20Gb 100Mrow table large concat key again,
without the temp tablespace going bananas on me? Why is it that if I enable
a resource manager plan on a very busy database it crashes with a 600
error on an assertion? Yes,yes: I know it's all "fixed in 10gr2"...
Isn't it about time this sort of errors got eradicated from 9i? Because
last time I looked Oracle wasn't a free product and we darn well paid for
9i!!
PPS. anyone remember Oracle's predictions of MPP killing the SMP ? :-)
ah yes: the nCube. Another delusion...
--
Cheers
Nuno Souto
in sunny Sydney, Australia
dbvision@xxxxxxxxxxxx
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
