Re: Caution on LOG_PARALLELISM
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
I'm quite interested in this problem you describe as we use (and reply on)
LOG_PARALLELISM in our 188.8.131.52 HP-UX environment.
Do you have any other information I can give Oracle that may help them locate
the details? Maybe a TAR number?
Interact Analysis Ltd
Quoting Sriram Kumar <k.sriramkumar@(protected)>:
> 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 P?der <tanel.poder.003@(protected):
> > 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
> > there is such a thing like dynamic log parallelism, that Oracle can
> > 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