Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Fix post-install DB opatch issues #125

Open
wants to merge 2 commits into
base: master
Choose a base branch
from
Open

Fix post-install DB opatch issues #125

wants to merge 2 commits into from

Conversation

mfielding
Copy link
Member

When testing a 12.2 RAC install, which has an extra HAS patch, I ran into two issues with the opatch logic:

  1. Unlike the GI install, the DB install is out of place, and runInstaller actually clobbers existing content in the ORACLE_HOME, including the OPatch executable. Therefore we need to update OPatch after the install has completed, but before invoking it to apply one-off patches
  2. The opatch output display runs a loop over the appy_oneoff results, in order to handle multiple patches if necessary. To display the output for the given patch, we need to print {{ item.xxx }} objects instead of the static {{ apply_oneoff }} ones.

When testing a 12.2 RAC install, which has an extra HAS patch, I ran into two issues with the opatch logic:

1. Unlike the GI install, the DB install is out of place, and runInstaller actually clobbers existing content in the ORACLE_HOME, including the OPatch executable.  Therefore we need to update OPatch _after_ the install has compelted, but before invoking it to apply one-off patches
2. The opatch output display runs a loop over the appy_oneoff results, in order to handle multiple patches if necessary.  To display the output for the given patch, we need to print {{ item.xxx }} objects instead of the static {{ apply_oneoff }} ones.
@mfielding
Copy link
Member Author

/test bms-toolkit-install

@mfielding mfielding requested a review from jcnars August 25, 2022 17:28
@@ -153,8 +153,8 @@
- name: rac-db-install | opatch output
debug:
msg:
- "{{ apply_oneoff.cmd }}"
- "{{ apply_oneoff.stdout_lines }}"
- "{{ item.cmd }}"
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The changes to this task rac-db-install | opatch output may be backed out, as a recent PR for EL8.5 fixed it.

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Yup, I will merge into current HEAD once approved.

@@ -137,6 +122,21 @@
- "{{ install_rac_db }}"
tags: rac-db,rac-db-install

- name: rac-db-install | Update DB OPatch
Copy link
Collaborator

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

IIUC, the task block rac-db-install | Update DB OPatch has been moved in this PR after the task rac-db-install | Set installer command.

Upon eyeballing the pre & post blocks, it seems the content is same. Does the new ordering have any functionality effect?

Copy link
Member Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Indeed the order does matter.

Unlike the GI install, the DB install is out of place, and runInstaller actually clobbers existing content in the ORACLE_HOME, including the OPatch executable. Therefore we need to update OPatch after the install has completed, but before invoking it to apply one-off patches

@google-oss-prow
Copy link

[APPROVALNOTIFIER] This PR is APPROVED

This pull-request has been approved by: mfielding

The full list of commands accepted by this bot can be found here.

The pull request process is described here

Needs approval from an approver in each of these files:

Approvers can indicate their approval by writing /approve in a comment
Approvers can cancel approval by writing /approve cancel in a comment

@google-oss-prow google-oss-prow bot added size/S and removed size/M labels May 19, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants