Monday, February 05, 2007

Upgrading to 10.2.0.3

Be advised that if you're upgrading to 64-bit 10.2.0.3 from a database that was ever a 32-bit db, you should read Metalink Note 412271.1. Otherwise, you'll be hit with:

ORA-00600: internal error code, arguments: [22635], [], [], [], [], [], [], []
ORA-06512: at "SYS.UPGRADE_SYSTEM_TYPES_FROM_920", line1

And yes, OracleDoc, this was in test.

7 comments:

Rama Nalam said...

Hi,

The given Doc ID is seven years old. When I searched the metalink, I got the following Doc: 406783.1. and bug ID 5841554.8. Also, in the "10.2.0.3 Patch Set - Known Issues" (401435.1). It seems a problem for us as we upgraded to 10g from 9i 32 bit on Solaris.

Alex said...

If interested, I've got few references here - Oracle Upgrade to 10.2.0.3 - Watch for ORA-600 [22635].
I'm not sure if it's only when database started life as version 8. When were your databases created guys?

Don said...

I'm planning to go to 10.2.0.3 on 64-bit from 10.2.0.2 on 32-bit, both on RHEL.

I'm planning on using datapump, hopefully I won't get bit.

OracleDoc said...

LOL,
Come on Jeff why would I assume that everything you do is on prod?

Jeff Hunter said...

Rama, documentation bug on my part. Right note specified (with link now).

Alex, good references. Mine were 8.1.5 dbs a long, long time ago.

Don, if you stay with 32bit you should be fine for an upgrade. Not sure dp is justified unless it's a real small db.

Doc, just funnin' ya.

Don said...

Jeff,

Not sure what you definition of "small" is, my DB is 800gb. What would you recommend for migration? RMAN?

We're also planning to migrate to ASM in this move.

Connor McDonald said...

A workaround that has worked for us is:

9.2 => 10.2.0.2 => 10.2.0.3

It was only when we went direct to 10.2.0.3 that we suffered from this.

Cheers
Connor