RE: expdp and ORA-01555
- From: Yong Huang <yong321@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: Tanel Poder <tanel.poder.003@xxxxxxx>, richa03@xxxxxxxxx
- Date: Wed, 27 Aug 2008 11:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
Thanks. I tried retention. Still the same error. I guess all these are for
future space usage, not the already corrupted blocks.
I'm guessing the cause of the error in 10.2.0.3 is the same as in 10.2.0.2. But
Oracle partially fixed the problem so the PL/SQL block in Note:452341.1 doesn't
detect it. I haven't tried to get an error stack. I won't be surprised if it
looks like Richa's.
Yong Huang
--- Tanel Poder <tanel.poder.003@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Hmm... if even PCTVERSION 100 doesn't help, then this *may* be a bug related
> to PCTVERSION calculation codepath. In which case you could (temporarily)
> replace the PCTVERSION 100 with RETENTION as this should use slightly
> different codepath (and then the undo_retention comes into play).
>
> This is just a guess though, if there's a bug involved, that ORA-1555 could
> be raised due any other reason in addition to the possible PCTVERSION
> issue...
>
> --
> Regards,
> Tanel Poder
> http://blog.tanelpoder.com
> http://n.otepad.com - n.ote this!
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Yong Huang [mailto:yong321@xxxxxxxxx]
> > Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2008 00:16
> > To: richa03@xxxxxxxxx
> > Cc: tanel.poder.003@xxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: expdp and ORA-01555
> >
> > Richa,
> >
> > We had two incidents of ORA-1555 on LOBs that look like
> > yours. But in both cases, the LOB is corrupted according to
> > the check in Note:452341.1 (probably hitting Bug 5212539,
> > which is fixed in 10.2.0.3). So it's different than yours.
> > Our database is 10.2.0.2 on 64-bit RH Linux, Itanium.
> >
> > Tanel's idea is very smart. I tried. I still got the errors.
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
