ORA-00600: internal error code, arguments: [22635], [], [], [], [], [], [], []
ORA-06512: at "SYS.UPGRADE_SYSTEM_TYPES_FROM_920", line1
And yes, OracleDoc, this was in test.
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:
And yes, OracleDoc, this was in test.
And yes, OracleDoc, this was in test.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
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.
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?
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.
LOL,
Come on Jeff why would I assume that everything you do is on prod?
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.
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.
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
Post a Comment