Re: database could not be started

On 11 Aug 2003 17:15:29 -0700, Joel Garry <joel-garry_at_home.com> wrote:

> quarkman <quarkman_at_myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:<oprtnqk2wfzkogxn_at_haydn>...
>
>> I don't know why suddenly 'resetlogs' is considered so evil! You would
>> have to type 'recover database until cancel'...'cancel'...'alter
>> database open resetlogs'. I make that a massive 9 words of typing!
>
> Resetlogs becomes evil when you attempt to switch back from a standby
> database. At least in 8i, it means the difference between many hours
> of backing up and moving files and restoring, versus e-shipping a few
> archived logs over from the standby host (I'm referring to the
> "Graceful Switchover and Switchback" paper on metalink, where the big
> trick is avoiding resetlogs). In the case of the project I'm working
> on now, it would be quicker to put someone on a plane with a tape for
> the switchback, since the communications link will be loaded with
> people doing work on the standby. All because of resetlogs.
>
> I'm curious if 9 is any different (that is, whether you have to play
> games to fool Oracle to do a switchback).
>
> I know this swerves the thread, and agree with everything else you
> said.
>
> jg

I agree with your caveat, but would merely point out that if you've got a standby database, you aren't likely to be worrying about the issue: you'll be in archivelog mode, and you won't be backing up your online redo logs anyway. Therefore, the need to do a 'non-evil' resetlogs to re-create online logs will/should never arise. It was in that context I was pointing out that it's not particularly bad news to do a resetlogs, because the bad news has already happened: restore from prior backup equals lost data.

Regards
HJR Received on Tue Aug 12 2003 - 01:23:36 CDT