<rant and rave mode ON>
All of which sounds ridiculous. Going by that logic, I should
not have applied
the CPU-Oct05 patch without having applied the CPU-Jul05 patch .... no ,
wait a minute,
I should have applied the CPU-Apr05 .. or even the CPU-Jan05 patch
...
How could they assume that we religiously apply every patchset ?
How many
times in a year should I schedule downtime for the 24x7 ERP database ?
If we could jump from 8.0.6.x to 9.2.0.1, surely we
could go from 9.2.0.1 to 9.2.0.6 or
9.2.0.2 to 9.2.07. The PatchSet README's DO SAY that they are
*cumulative* !
<normal, hardworking DBA mode ON>
oh well. Before I apply the latest patchset I must look out for
alerts recommending,
pre-patch patches [and hope that the alerts have already been issued at
least the day
before I apply the patchset].
Hemant K Chitale
At 06:07 AM Friday, Paul Drake wrote:
On 1/5/06, Ray Stell <stellr@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
- Concerning Solaris 64bit 9.2.0.4.
- I found this note that says I have to apply 9.2.0.6 before 9.2.0.7.
Ray,
That sounds quite familiar.
Originally, 9i R2 for lin_x86 was released as 9.2.0.3.
It was later re-released as 9.2.0.4.
The 9.2.0.5 patchset could not be applied to 9.2.0.3.
At the time, there was no note about it - it was simply a difference of assumptions
(the patchset was produced with the assumption that 9.2.0.4 had been applied).
Hemant K Chitale
http://web.singnet.com.sg/~hkchital
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
