Something like “Create unplugged copy of <pdb name> [as <new pdb name>]”
making an unplugged copy of a pdb without unplugging it would be really useful,
especially if that means it does NOT reset the recovery thread in the original.
(This suggestion was made pretty much as soon as it was realized that the
recovery thread was reset). In that mode, the pluggable copy would not be
something you could roll forward, since it would be a new recovery thread
wherever you plugged it back in.
From: oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:oracle-l-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On ;
Behalf Of Mladen Gogala
Sent: Thursday, December 24, 2020 2:11 PM
To: oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: duplicate pdb from backup
Hi Nenad!
Oracle is not SQL Server. Oracle tenant databases are not as well isolated as
SQL Server databases. Technically, Oracle multi-tenant solution is very much
inferior to SQL Server, MySQL or PostgreSQL in many aspects. Backup and copying
the databases is one such aspect. Also, SQL Server can have some tenants in
simple transaction mode which corresponds to Orracle's NOARCHIVELOG while
having other tenants in the full transaction mode, which corresponds to archive
logging. However, the existence of the root container and CDB_* tables is
sometimes very useful. And I agree with you: I would like to see tenants that
I can backup and restore to another instance. I would also like to be able to
create indexes on the local temporary tables.
On the other side, I would also like seeing PL/SQL implemented on MS SQL. If
PostgreSQL can have a version of PL/SQL and DB2 can have it, I am not quite
sure why MS is so hesitant with that. MS SQL Server can, for instance, execute
Python from within the database:
https://www.sqlshack.com/how-to-use-python-in-sql-server-2017-to-obtain-advanced-data-analytics/
So, there is obviously a capability to replace T-SQL with something else. I
believe this is a marketing decision. And that "machine learning" stuff is a
story by itself. Looks like MS is on track to produce Heuristic Algorithmic
Language computer, HAL 9000. The BSOD will be replaced by "You're killing me
Dave".
On 12/23/20 1:04 PM, Noveljic Nenad wrote:
That works - apart that it wipes out the whole destination CDB. It’s a strange
behavior for the feature that was marketed as a consolidation panacea. Also,
there doesn’t seem to be a way to specify a new name for the cloned PDB. In
contrast, duplicate from active leaves the CDB and all other PDBs intact. It’s
difficult for me to understand the reason for the completely different behavior
in both use cases. No such problems in MS SQL Server, by the way.
Thanks,
--
Mladen Gogala
Database Consultant
http://mgogala.byethost5.com