Re: Transaction ID wraparound, Oracle style

On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:21 AM, Igor Polishchuk <igor(at)powerreviews(dot)com> wrote:
> Here is an article on a recently discovered Oracle flaw, which allows SCN to
> reach its limit.
> http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9223506/Fundamental_Oracle_flaw_revea
> led?taxonomyId=18&pageNumber=1
>
> Please don't beat me for posting a link for an Oracle related article.
> If you despise a very notion of mentioning Oracle, please just don't read
> the post.
> This article may be interesting to any RDBMS  professional, no mater what db
> flavor he/she is working with.
> Also, this story may be a lesson for the Postgresql community on how not do
> things. I'm not a developer, but it seems that having synchronized
> transaction id between let say streaming-replicated databases would give
> some advantages if done properly.

Wow, interesting difference between postgresql which occasionally
resets its smaller transaction id to prevent wrap whereas oracle just
uses a bigger number. If my calcs are right, Oracle has about 500
years to figure out the wrap around limit at 16ktps etc.

Thanks for the link, it was a fascinating read.

--
To understand recursion, one must first understand recursion.