[stoganv]

In the glog.common.properties file there's a setting for the way in which vpd policies can be applied - dynamic or static.

Dynamic causes the policies to be reparsed and applied every time with an obvious performance hit.

Static policies are applied only when they are first parsed. This is the default setting.

Has anyone set it to dynamic? We are currently having an intermittent problem with static policies and ORA-28113 (I've mentioned this in another thread) and I'm thinking about setting it to dynamic as a temporary solution.

Our server has a bit of headroom in both CPU and RAM and i'm thinking it can take a performance hit while t he issue gets resolved.

Anyone? Should I post this in performance forum?

Cheers - Stojan.

[chrisplough]

This is going back a bit and it's *really* early in the morning here - so please excuse my answer if it doesn't fit.

I don't believe that the move in OTM from Dynamic to Static VPD policies was primarily for performance - I believe it was for stability. When set to dynamic, there were times that the security wasn't being parsed correctly and data was becoming visible under certain situations. (Again, this is going back in my rusty memory a bit).

Now - as to whether this will help your current issue with static profiles - I'm not sure. I know that SR has been open a while for you. It may be worth testing in DEV, but I'd be very careful about verifying data access and visibility.

--Chris

[stoganv]

Oh no, more road blocks.

A temporary solution we are looking to implement is to only set the vpd to dynamic for the business monitor queries by wrapping them in stored procs/pipelined functions.

My test cases have proved setting the VPD to dynamic does not produce the ORA-28113 error.

Setting it dynamic at the application level carries a few risks and fixing one problem might create a few more. I thought I'd see if anyone has ever set it to dynamic and get some feedback.

cheers - stojan.

[chrisplough]

No problem - I'm not saying not to do it, just that you'll want to be pretty thorough in your testing

--Chris