Re: nologging and recovery
- From: Niall Litchfield <niall.litchfield@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: thump@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Thu, 6 Jan 2005 14:49:46 +0000
On Wed, 5 Jan 2005 11:52:39 -0800 (PST), David <thump@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I have plans to dunduct that very test now due to the varying responses
> and if I'm to recommend such changes then I dman well better be able to
> recover.
>
> Came here first to learn from others first hand experience and avoid
> wasting valuable time.
>
> I'll update with my findings.
> Issue does'nbt seem to be as cut and dry as the intial responses would
> make out.
It seemed to me that the responses were clear. Yes the *database* is
recoverable (subject to the usual caveats of actually having
everything you need for a restore), the NOLOGGING changes will be lost
- that might mean objects - it could if you allow operations like
INSERT /*+ APPEND */ ... mean that data is lost from recovered
objects.
If you decide to go the other way (require that all operations are
recoverable) then ALTER DATABASE FORCE LOGGING is a nice addition from
9i.
I'd still do the test, not least because I don't regard saying to my
boss "I suggest that we do XXXXX, some experts on the Net said it was
a good idea" as a career enhancing approach to data management.
--
Niall Litchfield
Oracle DBA
http://www.niall.litchfield.dial.pipex.com
--
//www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l
Other related posts:
