RE: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
- From: "Jesse, Rich" <Rich.Jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 5 May 2004 14:23:00 -0500
Whew! Good thing that's gone. Has anyone messed with OiD in 10g? (I'm =
assuming that's the replacement) Hopefully replication has become =
stable, because in 9.0 it flat out didn't work (on Linux at least).
I'm Rich Jesse and I approve of this message.
Rich Jesse System/Database Administrator
rich.jesse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx QuadTech, Sussex, WI USA
> -----Original Message-----
> From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 05, 2004 2:14 PM
> To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Subject: Re: Wrong results using decode when db upgraded to 9205
>
> It isn't! It does have my full moral support. Oracle names=20
> is, tragically,
> not only unsupported, but gone, as in "no more".
----------------------------------------------------------------
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 //www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/
FAQ is at //www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Other related posts: