Patch set / Patch

[raylin]

How can I verify if a patch for Oracle Rel. n ( = patch set m) is included in Oracle Rel. n+1 (= patch set m+1) ?

 

[SantaMufasa]

Raylin,

If your target platform is Windows, then each successive patch is cumulative (i.e., includes contents of previous patches back to, but not including, the base install). If the target o/s is *nix-based, then "cumulation" is not the norm.

Can you please advise us of which o/s you are targetting and what patch levels you anticipate?

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[raylin]

the platform is AIX
from 9.2.0.6 to 9.2.0.8

for example : the patch on top of 9.2.0.7

Patch 5087349


Description MERGE LABEL REQUEST ON TOP OF 9.2.0.7 FOR BUGS 4523125 3396162
Product RDBMS Server
Release 9.2.0.7

 

[SantaMufasa]

I actually did the 9.2.0.8 AIX patch just yesterday. I chose that patch because it literally was the cumulative patch for 9.2.0.7 plus all of its bug fixes.


Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[SantaMufasa]

The 9.2.0.8 AIX patch, however, is #4547809, which does not match any of the patch numbers that you list, above.

Mufasa
(aka Dave of Sandy, Utah, USA)
[I provide low-cost, remote Database Administration services: www.dasages.com]

 

[karluk]

I don't think there is any automatic way of determining this. If you search Metalink for patch 5087349, the patch info will contain the following lines:

Patchsets known to include or supersede Patch 5087349   
No information available from the patch repository

Unfortunately, the help text that accompanies these lines gives an explicit disclaimer that it isn't completely reliable. That means that the "No information available" message can't really be trusted.

If I were you, I would explicitly go the the readme documentation for all the later patchsets. The readme doc contains a section listing all the bug fixes included in the patch set. In your case, if you do a search for "5087349" in the readme doc for the 9.2.0.8.0 patch set, the search will fail, thus indicating that the patch isn't included in the 9.2.0.8.0 patch set.

 

[karluk]

Sorry, my mistake. You need to do the search on the bug numbers, not the patch number. The readme for patch 5087349 says it fixes bugs 4523125 and 3396162. The readme for patchset 9.2.0.8.0 doesn't mention either of these bugs as being fixed by the patch set, so the patch isn't included in the patch set.

 

[karluk]

Yikes, this is more complicated than I thought. If you search Metalink for "4523125" or "3396162", they both show up in document 358776.1, which is a list of bugs fixed in the 9.2.0.8 patch set. So my conclusion from my earlier posts was wrong, and I now conclude patch 5087349 is, indeed, included in the later patch set.

 

[raylin]

OK thank you for the info

But in the 9.2.0.8 Patchset notes there is no mention of document 358776.1 which is helpfull (only fixed platform-specific bugs + patch set components but no list of bug fixes by problem type).
I missed this document in 9.2.0.8 Patchset notes .


And it seems that for ex. bug nr 3396162 is assimilated to path nr 3396162 before it is included in a Patch Set