Comments on: PL/Scope in Oracle Database 11g

By: Eddie Awad

Eddie Awad — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 07:06:04 +0000

Here is the answer from Oracle.

By: Eddie Awad

Eddie Awad — Thu, 13 Sep 2007 04:26:15 +0000

Chris, I am not aware of any SR filed on this. In addition to what Dan posted on his site, I am trying to get the word out by blogging about it here as well. I have also posted a link to this post in the Oracle ACE Director Database Private Forum. So now you know.

Moreover, Dan says that he is working on getting an answer from Oracle about this. I have emailed Dan to ask him if he got a reply from Oracle, but I have not heard back from him yet.

By: Chris Gait

Chris Gait — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:26:55 +0000

Duplicated comment. This one has the right email.

By: Chris Gait

Chris Gait — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 16:26:08 +0000

I’m not seeing any bug filing on this on the Oracle side. Does anyone know if there an SR filed on this database corruption? If this is actually a total show-stopper database corruption issue we need to get word out about this ASAP. If so, I will try to get you to the right people at Oracle.

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 08:59:54 +0000

Hi.

The instance is still screwed using the catalog.sql approach. Looks like doing anything with the standard package is a bad idea.

I guess we will have to wait and see what Oracle say.

Cheers

Tim...

By: Eddie Awad

Eddie Awad — Wed, 12 Sep 2007 04:48:37 +0000

Thanks guys for trying to invalidate 7000 objects with one command

I believe that the documentation needs to be modified anyways. Dan mentioned that he already contacted Oracle about this.

Shakespeare (very nice name by the way), I agree with you that functionality is more important than form, but this does not mean that form is not important.

To me, a blog without an RSS feed is not a blog. I just do not want to visit any “blog” every day just to see if the author has published something new.

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 15:18:15 +0000

Whoops. Should have used catalog.sql, not catproc.sql! I’m trying again now.

Cheers

Tim…

By: Tim Hall

Tim Hall — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 14:57:14 +0000

Hi.

I would suggest anything that requires the standard package to be recompiled is probably cause for a rerun of the catproc.sql script.

I tried the compile-only method and it invalidated over 7000 objects, most of which wouldn’t recompile when I ran the utlrp.sql script.

The following seemed to work fine:

CONN / AS SYSDBA
ALTER SESSION SET plscope_settings=’IDENTIFIERS:ALL’;
@?/rdbms/admin/catproc.sql
@?/rdbms/admin/utlrp.sql

At the end of this I had no invalid objects and the DB seemed fine. Even so, I’m switching back to a snapshot just in case.

Cheers

Tim…

By: Shakespeare

Shakespeare — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:59:06 +0000

I think it’s cheap to comment on how Daniel Morgan creates his ‘blog’. As with his library pages, functionality is more important than form. And I can understand why he has not enabled features like posting comments, knowing the comment history of newsgroups.
Just hope his blog will show up in Google Blog Alerts….

What’s in a blog?

By: Shakespeare

Shakespeare — Tue, 11 Sep 2007 07:52:05 +0000

Anuraq: if you did not spell IDENTIFIERS but IDENIFIERS this makes sense…