RE: using ifile in the tnsnames.ora file
- From: "Jacques Kilchoer" <Jacques.Kilchoer@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: "oracle-l" <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 13:38:11 -0800
Sorry, I should do better proof-reading. I corrected a sentence below.
Recently however, when creating database links, I noticed that the database
link FAILED WHEN using an alias that is coming from an "ifile" in the
tnsnames.ora (unable to resolve service name)
________________________________
De la part de Jacques Kilchoer
Objet : using ifile in the tnsnames.ora file
Do you use an IFILE parameter in a network configuration file (tnsnames.ora,
sqlnet.ora, other) to consolidate entries in a central location? I guess it's
an obsolete practice and I should stop.
I've been using IFILE parametes in the tnsnames.ora file for as long as I've
been using Oracle. Recently however, when creating database links, I noticed
that the database link failed when using an alias that is coming from an
"ifile" in the tnsnames.ora (unable to resolve service name), even though
SQL*Plus on the server could use that entry. I've never had problems using an
IFILE in the tnsnames.ora except the one I recently encountered with database
links.
Imagine my surprise when I saw this on Tom Kyte's website:
http://asktom.oracle.com/pls/asktom/f?p=100:11:0::::P11_QUESTION_ID:489021635775
Quoter: "IFILE is not supported for tnsnames/listener/sqlnet/protocol.ora
files."
I checked the network administration / reference manuals for 8.0.6, 8.1.7, 9.0,
9.2, 10.1, the "ifile" parameter is never mentioned for the network
configuration files (sqlnet.ora, tnsnames.ora, listener.ora, cman.ora,
names.ora, ldap.ora) - but it is mentioned in the server reference manual as a
valid parameter for the init.ora file.
Is this a new limitation? For example I quickly found Metalink note 1017689.102
that tells me I can use ifile in the tnsnames.ora and listener.ora files with
an Oracle 8.0 listener.
I found a couple of recent notes that mentioned a tnsnames.ora containing an
ifile (Notes 397684.1 and 397567.1) but both of these notes had the comment
"This document is being delivered to you via Oracle Support's Rapid Visibility
(RaV) process, and therefore has not been subject to an independent technical
review."
Other related posts:
