Re: multiple patchsets

<rant and rave mode ON>

All of which sounds ridiculous. Going by that logic, I should not have applied
the CPU-Oct05 patch without having applied the CPU-Jul05 patch .... no , wait a minute,
I should have applied the CPU-Apr05 .. or even the CPU-Jan05 patch ...
How could they assume that we religiously apply every patchset ? How many
times in a year should I schedule downtime for the 24x7 ERP database ?

 If we could jump from 8.0.6.x to 9.2.0.1, surely we could go from 9.2.0.1 to 9.2.0.6 or
9.2.0.2 to 9.2.07. The PatchSet README's DO SAY that they are *cumulative* !
<normal, hardworking DBA mode ON>

oh well. Before I apply the latest patchset I must look out for alerts recommending,
pre-patch patches [and hope that the alerts have already been issued at least the day
before I apply the patchset].
Hemant K Chitale
At 06:07 AM Friday, Paul Drake wrote:
On 1/5/06, Ray Stell
<mailto:stellr_at_cns.vt.edu>

wrote:

Concerning Solaris 64bit
<a href="http://9.2.0.4">9.2.0.4</a>.

I found this note that says I have to apply <a href="http://9.2.0.6">9.2.0.6</a> before <a href="http://9.2.0.7">9.2.0.7</a>.

Ray,
That sounds quite familiar.
Originally, 9i R2 for lin_x86 was released as <a href="http://9.2.0.3">9.2.0.3</a>.
It was later re-released as 9.2.0.4. The 9.2.0.5 patchset could not be applied to <a href="http://9.2.0.3">9.2.0.3</a>.
At the time, there was no note about it - it was simply a difference of assumptions
(the patchset was produced with the assumption that <a href="http://9.2.0.4">9.2.0.4</a> had been applied).

Hemant K Chitale
<a href="http://web.singnet.com.sg/~hkchital" eudora="autourl"> http://web.singnet.com.sg/~hkchital
</a>

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