Oracle FAQ | Your Portal to the Oracle Knowledge Grid |
![]() |
![]() |
Home -> Community -> Mailing Lists -> Oracle-L -> RE: Is it just me
It still ultimately has the usage profile of 'freeze transactions because we
wrapped redo logs' if you run out of space to grow the flashback area.
Presumably retention guarantee would have to be able to do the similar
freeze until it could grow or the retention time limit is reached so stuff
could get tossed. Even so, I still don't see how a time boundary could
guarantee that the requisite copy out to audit tables was complete.
In my thinking audit trails have to be Murphy aware, and this scenario just begs to be broken.
mwf
-----Original Message-----
From: oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org
[mailto:oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org]On Behalf Of
Jared.Still_at_radisys.com
Sent: Thursday, August 12, 2004 4:48 PM
To: oracle-l_at_freelists.org
Subject: Re: Is it just me
> > IIRC, there are no guarantees that Oracle will actually save the data
> > for 1 hour. It will make a best effort, but a 'storm' of activity
> > could subvert that.
>
> Btw, in 10g, there is..
> You just specify "retention guarantee" when creating an undo tablespace
(or
> alter it later on).
>
So, is this 'unbreakable'?
Sounds like a challenge. ;)
Jared
-- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html ----------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------- Please see the official ORACLE-L FAQ: http://www.orafaq.com ---------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe send email to: oracle-l-request_at_freelists.org put 'unsubscribe' in the subject line. -- Archives are at http://www.freelists.org/archives/oracle-l/ FAQ is at http://www.freelists.org/help/fom-serve/cache/1.html -----------------------------------------------------------------Received on Thu Aug 12 2004 - 22:06:42 CDT
![]() |
![]() |