Quote:
Originally posted by julian
The transaction was automatically commited by Oracle after dropping UNDOTBS1.
comitted... what if the user didnt want to commit that data
Printable View
Quote:
Originally posted by julian
The transaction was automatically commited by Oracle after dropping UNDOTBS1.
comitted... what if the user didnt want to commit that data
ah by the way, I was playing around the other day offlining the tablespaces because I read this note from Metalink that you have to put tablespace in READ ONLY then OFFLINE if we want to rename a datafile however in ILT course there was no such requirement, offline was enough
So I did a DML in a session, put the tablespace where the segment I was modifying belongs offline. Commit the transaction, got comitted. So far so good I guess the commit data is saved in redo log, then I did a checkpoint to see if the comitted data would get written to the disk since the tablespace was offline I was expecting complains. I didnt try it but I guess I would lose the tablespace if I was in noarchive log, redo logs which contains the transaction gets overwritten and I try to put tablespace online, may be this is the reason why we must put tablespace in read only?
You are right Jurij, I just tested again. First, from the same session, it worked as I explained above and the commit is implicit as you suggested. But if you try to alter the undo_tablespace from a separate session, you get, well I got, ORA-30013: undo tablespace UNDOTBS is currently in use.Quote:
Originally posted by jmodic
[BUnless, of course, you performed DROP TABLESPACE from within the same session that started that uncommited transaction. If this is the case, then of course it was you that implictly commited the transaction, not the database system itself. [/B]
So, there seems to be nothing unsual :-)
so it´s back to my assumption, what can we do here, we cannot shrink the RBS manully
so this is tricky
You mean if for example we have a runway transaction? Leading to consuming a lot of undo space?Quote:
Originally posted by pando
so it´s back to my assumption, what can we do here, we cannot shrink the RBS manully
so this is tricky
yea read my previous posts, sort of like that