Re: ORA-01547: warning: RECOVER succeeded but OPEN RESETLOGS

yls177_at_hotmail.com (yls177) wrote in message news:<c06e4d68.0406140728.79466dd_at_posting.google.com>...
> "Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:<40cd5b12$0$13621$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au>...
> > "yls177" <yls177_at_hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:c06e4d68.0406132356.1965d961_at_posting.google.com...
> > > i add a datafile to my production and did the same with my standby.
> > > afterwhich, i synch back them but get the below
> > >
> > >
> > > ORA-01547: warning: RECOVER succeeded but OPEN RESETLOGS would get
> > > error below
> > > ORA-01194: file 1 needs more recovery to be consistent
> > > ORA-01110: data file 1: '/oracle/SID/data1/system_1/system.data1'
> > >
> > >
> > > the log sequence in my production and standby servers are the same and
> > > my archive log list shows the same sequence as well as given further
> > > confirmation by my alert file.
> > >
> > >
> > > is there any cause for alarm?
> >
> > Er, yes.
> >
> > We could analyze this really carefully, and um and ahh about how one goes
> > about propagating physical database changes to a standby. But to do that, we
> > might need minor details such as Oracle version and operating system.
> >
> > The shorter story is: forget it. The making of a physical alteration to your
> > primary database renders your standby database invalid, such that it needs
> > to be re-created from scratch (one of the major pains-in-the-butt regarding
> > standby databases since time immemorial).
> >
> > Regards
> > HJR
>
> both are on aix 5.2, with oracle 9
>

HJR, i wrote the above.... anyway, thanks for your guidance... greatly appreciate

> this parameter "standby_file_management" enables the datafiles to be
> created automatically in the standby database.. and currently, my team
> doesnt have this parameter implemented yet so what we did is to create
> them maunally... and all these while, we did not create any new
> control file at all.... and do some manual recover commands and from
> the archive log list... they seems to be in synch.. unless we are
> missing something really important... please advise...
Received on Mon Jun 14 2004 - 23:38:30 CDT