Re: Caution on LOG_PARALLELISM

Hi Sriram,

I raised a call with Oracle requesting more details on the bug number you quoted (4008013), however they have told me that this bug does not relate to LOG_PARALLELISM. I'm quite interested in this problem you describe as we use (and reply on) LOG_PARALLELISM in our 9.2.0.6 HP-UX environment.

Do you have any other information I can give Oracle that may help them locate the details? Maybe a TAR number?

Thanks,
Scott Hutchinson
Interact Analysis Ltd

Quoting Sriram Kumar <k.sriramkumar_at_gmail.com>:

> Hi Tanel,
>
> Good that it becomes a hidden parameter in 10g. The bug number that
> was given to me was 4008013 but was not table to see the bug details.
>
> Best Regards
>
> Sriram Kumar
>
> On 8/10/05, Tanel Põder <tanel.poder.003_at_mail.ee> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > > Lesson I learnt from this exercise is that always use log_parallelism
> > > with caution and would also suggest folks not to try this directly in
> > > a critcal environment.
> >
> > We'll starting from 10g, log_parallelism becomes a hidden parameter and
> also
> > there is such a thing like dynamic log parallelism, that Oracle can
> change
> > the number of redolog strands on the fly. So from 10g you really can't
> > control it, unless instructed so by support...
> >
> > Do you have the bug number?
> >
> > Tanel.

::This message sent using the free Web Mail service from http://TheName.co.uk

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l