Re: new posts to an old issue

"Richard Foote" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
> "yls177" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=3f927ab3%240%2436
> 99%24afc38c87%40news.optusnet.com.au&rnum=8&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Dyls177%2Bgrou
> p:comp.databases.oracle.server%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dcomp
> .databases.oracle.server%26scoring%3Dd
> >
> >
> > hi, from the above... i cant post to that again. so have to link these
> > two together...
> >
> > basically... its like this
> >
> > recently.. my colleagues have come up with 2 shutdown procedures and
> > are as belows
> >
> > 1)
> > alter system switch logfile
> > alter system checkpoint
> > shutdown abort
> > startup restrict
> > shutdown immediate
> >
> >
> > 2)
> > alter system switch logfile
> > alter system checkpoint
> > shutdown immediate
> >
> 
> This has all been discussed to death previously but I'm curious about the
> benefits of performing the checkpoint in either scenario.
> 
> In scenario 1 it kinda defeats the "purpose" of the shutdown abort and could
> result in more cleaning out of uncommitted changes on disk ?

Depends what "purpose" you mean.  I think the OP here is just talking
about general shutting down, rather than for some emergency purpose
like the disk is about to fail or a DNS attack blowing in
transactions.  So in general shutting down, there shouldn't be too
many uncommited changes between the switch and explicit checkpoint. 
In a real emergency (THE FLOODWATERS ARE RISING!), someone would need
to make a split-second decision about whether to try to keep current
transactions.

> 
> In scenario 2, an implicit checkpoint is performed regardless ?

Doesn't the switch logfile imply them in both?

> 
> Just curious in what your colleague's reasoning.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Richard

jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/uniontrib/tue/business/news_1b2boeing.html