A portion of the disclosure of this patent document contains material which is subject to copyright protection. The copyright owner has no objection to the facsimile reproduction by anyone of the patent document or the patent disclosure, as it appears in the Patent and Trademark Office patent file or records, but otherwise reserves all copyright rights whatsoever.
The disclosure relates to the field of reducing downtime during upgrade of database system environments and more particularly to techniques for analyzing a file system state to determine the nature of upgrading operations.
In modern database systems, file systems are often used in addition to the database tables. File systems—in particular partitions of a file system—typically serve as a repository for application code and application-specific configuration settings. Vendors of such database systems and vendors of applications that run in conjunction with other database components periodically release upgrades in the form of entirely updated partitions of a file system (e.g., a “major release”), or the vendors may periodically release a patch set covering only “one-off” fixes, or patches covering only a portion of the release (e.g., a “partial release patch set”). System administrators may (or may not) observe the vendor's recommendations for applying patches in a timely fashion (e.g., synchronous or nearly synchronous with patch releases), or they may choose to apply patches in a fashion determined by the system administrators, or, the system administrators may defer applying any or all patches. Further, in some cases, system administrators may make changes to the file system in the form of changes to application code and/or changes to application-specific configuration settings that are not precisely in synchronicity with the vendor's patch releases. Still further, in some cases, system administrators may make changes to the file system, which changes are repugnant with respect to the vendor's patch releases. This results in the situation where the file system may or may not be in a “known” state prior to an upgrade. This creates problems as follows:
When it comes time to upgrade (e.g., by upgrading to a major release) use of legacy techniques force the vendors to one of two choices, both of which are at least partially undesirable and/or destructive:
The problem is further exacerbated when the file system is deployed in the context of a database system or an application system that is to be upgraded concurrently with the upgrade of the file system. Yet, using techniques disclosed herein, it is possible to achieve desired aspects without incurring undesired aspects. For example, in some cases it is possible to upgrade while preserving the configuration or code changes made by the system administrators (thus retaining the configuration intentions of the system administrators). In some cases, the changes made by the system administrators can be classified as “don't care”, or “default override”, or can be classified as otherwise benign with respect to the stability of the resulting upgraded system, thus enabling an upgrade while preserving the configuration or code changes made by the system administrators.
What's needed to accomplish these improvements are multiple techniques for upgrading a file system that considers cases when the state of the file system to be upgraded is not factory-fresh, yet it can be unequivocally determined to be a sufficiently stable system so as to be deemed a viable candidate for non-destructive patching.
Unfortunately, legacy techniques do not perform steps for analyzing a file system state to determine a confidence score, nor do legacy techniques perform steps for classifying a file system state to determine a sequence of rebuilding operations. Therefore, there is a need for an improved approach.
The present disclosure provides an improved method, system, and computer program product suited to address the aforementioned issues with legacy approaches. More specifically, the present disclosure provides a detailed description of techniques used in methods, systems, and computer program products for analyzing a file system state to determine a promotion path during an online patching cycle.
The method commences by identifying an initial file system and a shadow file system, the shadow file system being at least some duration older than the initial run file system, then analyzing a history of events that occurred in or on the installation during the duration to determine a degree of confidence. Based on the degree of confidence, then selecting the initial file system to be used on the online patching cycle when the confidence value is equal or above a threshold, or selecting the shadow file system to be used in the online patching cycle when the confidence value is below a threshold. The history of events is recorded in forms of a patch list, and/or a patching table, and/or configuration logs, and/or a log file, and/or a list of configuration events or any combinations of the foregoing.
Further details of aspects, objectives, and advantages of the disclosure are described below in the detailed description, drawings, and claims. Both the foregoing general description of the background and the following detailed description are exemplary and explanatory, and are not intended to be limiting as to the scope of the claims.
Some embodiments of the present disclosure are directed to an improved approach for implementing analyzing a file system state to determine a promotion path during an online patching cycle. More particularly, disclosed herein are exemplary environments, methods, and systems for analyzing a file system state to determine a confidence value.
Described herein-below and in the accompanying figures are scalable methods and apparatus for implementing analyzing a file system state to determine a promotion path during an online patching cycle.
In modern computing environment settings (e.g., commercial mission-critical systems, operational command and control, etc.), system downtime or other outages due to upgrading (e.g., file system patching, file system rebuilding, etc.) is a major concern in the design of enterprise-wide infrastructure and mission-critical systems. System downtime is especially serious for installations that are configured as a centralized installation, in turn serving many distributed installations. System outages can impact all operations, and system outages often incur great cost when the system outage interferes with customer-related interactions (e.g., sales, service, payments, etc.) or another core business activity (e.g., incoming inspection, manufacturing, etc.). The herein-disclosed techniques for upgrades of installation-wide infrastructure (e.g., including patches or upgrades of software (e.g., software applications and/or software application services, upgrades of file system format and/or content, etc.) facilitate the trend to deploying fewer enterprise-wide sites and fewer installations of mission-critical systems without adversely impacting business activities that rely on nearly 100% uptime of their corresponding computing systems.
In particular, the upgrade techniques disclosed herein include a set of features known as “File System Editioning”. File System Editioning enables application patches to be applied with dramatically reduced downtime by executing database patch actions on a “patch edition” of the runtime system. While an online patch is executing (e.g., patching the application code and patching the application load data), the production application remains available and fully functional. Moreover, use of the herein-disclosed techniques serve to transparently perform an upgrade of a computing environment that includes an upgrade of both application code and application load data, and without the need for application programmers to write application code to manage upgrades.
As a part of implementing features known as “File System Editioning”, the figures and discussions below disclose techniques for upgrading a file system, which techniques considers cases when the state of the file system to be upgraded is not factory-fresh, yet using the herein-disclosed techniques the file system can be unequivocally determined to be in a sufficiently stable state so as to be deemed a viable candidate for non-destructive patching.
File System Editioning can include any one or more of several file system synchronization techniques. Strictly as examples, file system synchronization techniques can comprise a complete replacement form of synchronization (incurring commensurate resource utilization and latencies), or a light-weight synchronization, or, in some cases, a file system synchronization technique might involve merely configuration change detection synchronization. One or another or combinations of the aforementioned techniques can be used, responsive to analysis of the subject file system states, and/or a history of patch operations, and/or a history of configuration change operations.
One skilled in the art can recognize that in the context of an editioned file system, there are to be two copies of a file system during each upgrade cycle:
A single patch (aka “one-off”) is a delivery vehicle for an atomic behavior change. To implement a one-off behavior change, all the code and data (e.g., user interface, business logic, data model, seed data, data transformation logic, etc.) pertaining to the atomic behavior change is changed contemporaneously. Patch sets are a convenience to aggregate a set of behavior changes such that only a single step (e.g., “atomic”) change action delivers the desired new behavior changes.
Some of the terms used in this description are defined below for easy reference. The presented terms and their respective definitions are not rigidly restricted to these definitions—a term may be further defined by the term's use within this disclosure.
Reference is now made in detail to certain embodiments. The disclosed embodiments are not intended to be limiting of the claims.
The flow as shown commences with a patch set analysis (see operation 162) to determine the code-level state of a given file system. It might be determined that the given file system should receive code-level incremental patches (see decision 163), in which case certain code-level rebuild operations are scheduled (see operation 164) This operation 164 applies the identified patches (from operation 162) to the patch edition file system. The patch history tables are updated to reflect that those patches have been applied. Note that two file systems are maintained concurrently, and alternate or ping/pong between which of the two file systems is defined and used as a run edition file system versus which of the two file systems is used as a patch edition file system (see
Some environments may support a real-time configuration change facility. For example, when an application configuration change occurs on a run file system, a flag is set to indicate that a such a configuration change has occurred, and that change map propagate further configuration changes and so on. Change occur in real time, and corresponding flags are set in real-time, and thus, in real-time, it might be determined that the given file system should receive configuration-level incremental patches (see decision 165), in which case certain configuration-level rebuild operations are scheduled (see operation 170). Various techniques pertaining to tracking and propagating configuration changes are further discussed in
The flow further continues to score the analysis results (see operation 172) from operation 162 and from operation 166 in order to determine a value comprising a confidence level (see operation 172). In some cases the analysis results from operation 162 and from operation 166 might indicate that the given file system contains only changes deemed as “don't care” changes, or “default override” changes, or can be classified as otherwise benign with respect to the stability of the resulting system, and thus the aforementioned scheduled operations (e.g., code-level rebuild operations, configuration-level rebuild operations) can be applied to the given file system, resulting in an upgraded file system having a known state.
In some cases, the analysis results from operation 162 and from operation 166 might indicate that the given file system contains unknown changes or other changes deemed as non-benign to the stability of the resulting system, and thus the aforementioned scheduled operations (e.g., code-level rebuild operations, configuration-level rebuild operations) if applied, would result in an upgraded file system having an unknown (and possibly unstable) state. In such a situation where the confidence level is below a threshold (see decision 174), a shadow file system (e.g., a file system of known state) is selected (see operation 176), and some or all of the aforementioned scheduled operations (e.g., code-level rebuild operations, configuration-level rebuild operations) can be applied (see operation 177) to the shadow file system, resulting in an upgraded file system having a known state, and which can be saved for a later cycle as a copy (see operation 178) and promoted as a patched candidate file system (see operation 179). In the other branch of decision 174, the initial run edition is selected (see operation 175) which then becomes the subject of scheduled patches (see operation 177).
The file system upgrade operations and/or any portion of the sample flow 1A00 might be performed in the environment of an editioned database system installation, which is now briefly discussed.
The depiction of the installation 1B00 introduces several concepts as shown and described herein. As shown, the installation comprises an application system 101 (e.g., a cluster environment, a portion of a database engine, etc.) which in turn comprises computing nodes (e.g., node 1021, node 1022, node 1023, node 1024, node 102N, etc.) any of which computing nodes can communicate with any other of the computing nodes. A software application (e.g., running software application 104) executes on a computing node and accesses stored data (e.g., business data 108), and one or more instances of a file system 110). A software application can also access stored data in various application-specific embodiments, (e.g., application metadata, application code modules, and logical schema).
The application code modules 116 serves to store one or more copies of the software application, while the application metadata (e.g., application metadata 1141 as shown, application metadata of the patch edition, etc.) serves to store data that is specific to the application (e.g., disjoint from the business data 108). Further, the application metadata can comprise application-specific data in the form of seed data, which can be used by the application to initialize data structures (e.g., screens, forms, menus, etc.) used by a running software application.
The application code modules (e.g., application code modules 1161) may be a copy of a portion of file system 110 or may be a reference (e.g., a link or a name) referring to a portion of file system 110.
Concept of Editioning
A particular collection of interrelated components in a database system (e.g., application metadata 114, application code modules 116, logical schema 118, business data 108, one or more instances of a file system 110, etc.) can be amalgamated into an “edition” (e.g., an initial run edition 106), which edition can them be subjected to transformations (e.g., data copies, data references, data conversions, etc.) into one or more other editions (e.g., patch edition 120), as shown.
In order to facilitate for reducing downtime during upgrades of interrelated components in a database system, the collection of interrelated components are handled using the techniques disclosed herein. Strictly as an introductory example, an instance of a running software application can access an initial run edition, or an instance of a running software application can access a patch edition. Various techniques for managing the timing and type of access are provided for by the editioning view 126 and by use of synonyms 124. For example, a synonym can be modified to refer to a logical schema of the initial run edition, or a synonym can be modified to refer to a logical schema of a patch edition.
As can be recognized by those skilled in the art, a system administrator or a first instance of a running software application can access and make changes to an initial run edition, and such changes can be detected and propagated to a patch edition using the cross-edition triggers 122. Changes pertaining to files or objects stored in the file system might affect the file system 1101, and such changes can be propagated to the patch edition file system (e.g., file system 1102) using a file system manager 139. Thus, the second instance of the running software application can access the changes that had been propagated to the patch edition.
The genesis of the file system of the patch edition (e.g., file system 1102) is determined in a manner responsive to an analysis of the state of the initial run edition file system state, and the method describing how the file system (and its shadow) of the patch edition is established is the subject of this disclosure. Strictly as an example, analysis of the state of the initial run edition file system might consider the change log configuration history 111 and/or a patch history 113. There are many ways for a file system to change state including changes made by a system administrator, as well as via changes made by an application running in environment 1B00, and a log of such changes can be kept in one or both of the data structures of the change log configuration history 111 and/or a patch history 113.
“The Application”
A running installation of a suite of enterprise software applications comprises a vast and complex system made up of many individual parts that are broadly separated into a taxonomy as follows:
Components within an installation can be further described as comprising:
A collection of schema, code and metadata definitions comprise an application definition 140. Components of the application definition may need to change over time, and the techniques herein prescribe how each part of the application definition are to be versioned and patched independently. Therefore, an application definition in a particular installation is known by a compound “version ID” comprised of the union of the versions of all of its constituent parts. An installed collection of versioned part definitions is referred to as an Application Edition. In exemplary cases, an application definition is stored both on the file system and in the database. Further it is typical to store multiple Application Editions within one installation, and in such cases, both the file system and database are used to hold a run edition version and one or more patch edition versions of the application definition.
File System Editions
A file system edition is a set of the files that make up an application definition. In some embodiments, there is a top level directory that contains an application system's file system artifacts. And, there may be another copy of similar contents in a directory separate from the top level directory
File System Cloning Operations
In addition to the factors considered as presented above (e.g., see
As shown, a process for implementing flow 1C00 might search for earlier-occurred events that would impact the confidence and decision-making. For example, operation 180 searches for recorded events such as a previously aborted patch cycle, or logged patch cycle SEVERE event or a logged patch cycle FAILURE event, or an administrative report of aberrant file system behavior when using one of the file systems (e.g. in a situation where maintenance efforts left unwanted effects).
In the situation that such events were discovered, the impact of those found events are assessed, and a determination is made as to the impact (see decision 182), which in turn might decrease the confidence score (see operation 183), or might increase the confidence score (see operation 181), or might be benign, and neither increase nor decrease the confidence score.
The calculated confidence score (see operation 184) is compared to a threshold (see operation 186), and if the confidence score is equal or greater than a threshold, then the flow 1C00 deems the current file system to be sufficient for use in the upgrade, and performs a full clone of the file system. In the case that the calculated confidence is less that a threshold, then the current file system deemed to be unsuitable for cloning to be used in the upgrade. Instead an earlier file system is selected (see operation 187) and a set of configuration changes are applied. In exemplary cases, timing, format and consistency checks are performed on the configuration changes before being applied (see operation 189).
In the context of the installation depicted in
To apply an online patch to an active/online installation, the installation is promoted through a series of sequential phases known as an online patching cycle. The shown online patching cycle 202 is given as:
As described in the above cycle, creating and patching relies on many specialized techniques to maintain a run edition (e.g., initial run edition 106) and one or more patch editions (e.g., patch edition 120) in the presence of continuously changing customer data in database tables (e.g., in the business data 108). The concept and implementation of “Edition-Based Redefinition” creates patch edition copies of application code modules and data in order to continuously apply patch transformations to runtime data that changes while the patch is executing.
The users can be all online users during the normal operation (e.g., during the running period 226), then for the brief period of the cutover (e.g., during the cutover period 228) the users are offline, to return online (e.g., in cleanup period 230) shortly after conclusion of the period of the cutover.
One embodiment supports full installation online patching. Some installations comprise many products (e.g., hundreds of software application configurations, and many tens of thousands of tables). In such a case it is convenient to deploy every installation to contain all products (though only some may be licensed for a particular installation) and then to patch all products that are included in every installation. In this manner, all products can be periodically updated to stay current with the recommended code levels.
Implementing the above cycle to manage edition components for reducing downtime during upgrades relies in part on a particular configuration of an edition. An approach to forming such a particular configuration of an edition is discussed herein. More particularly, an approach to forming particular configurations of file systems (e.g., a patch edition file system, a shadow file system) for use in an editioned upgrade, and for use in successive upgrade cycles is discussed below.
Before discussing successive upgrade cycles it is instructive to provide further details of sample flow 1A00. Now, returning to the discussion of
Some embodiments establish the aforementioned threshold on the basis of historical data. Other embodiments establish the threshold on the basis of one or more ratios. Still other embodiments establish the threshold on the basis of quantitative analysis performed during the progression of flow 1A00.
As earlier described in the discussion of
Strictly as examples, the upgrade cycle succession diagram 300 shows Cycle A 302, and Cycle B 304. Consider a factory-fresh file system 310 that is provided by a file system or application system vendor. A copy of that factory-fresh file system 310 is used (e.g., used or copied) to generate a run candidate file system 314, which is promoted to a run file system 318 (e.g., a file system 1101), which is in turn used in ongoing operations (e.g., within an initial run edition 106). Over time applications and/or system administrators might apply and/or log various changes (see operation 320) up until the beginning of an online patching cycle. At such a time, for example, within an online patch cycle prepare step 206, a flow commences (e.g., flow 1A00), and the given file system (e.g., Cycle A run file system 322) is deemed to be the candidate file system (see the operations of
In an alternative scenario, the run file system 322 may have been deemed as having insufficient confidence to be used as a candidate run file system, and accordingly a previously saved known-state (e.g., shadow file system, or factory-fresh file system 310, or previously saved and un-modified run file system 314) is cloned (e.g., see clone 326) and process into a run candidate file system 330 for use in Cycle B by applying configuration changes (see operation 328). The candidate file system 330 is promoted to create a run candidate 338, which is used as the Cycle B run file system, and to which changes are made on an ongoing bases (see operation 340).
Considering the foregoing, and considering that an application system 101 can have a long lifespan, during which there can be many upgrade cycles, it becomes apparent that a file system can be advantageously subjected to a method for analyzing a file system state to determine a promotion path during an online patching cycle. The method can proceed by:
In exemplary embodiments, a series of operations as shown in operation chart 400 are performed prior to or concurrent with the operations leading up to decision 163. As shown, the system to analyze patch history 405 serves to enumerate configuration name/value pairs and compares with the change log configuration history 111 (see operation 410). The system to analyze patch history 405 can also consider the file ID of any file in the file system, and can use such a file ID to determine if the file needs to be revised or upgraded or patched with a patch file (see operation 420). Responsive to the findings of operation 420, the system to analyze patch history 405 can locate a set of patches as well as locate a set of patch install drivers (see operation 430). In some situations, the change log configuration history 111 and/or a patch history 113 may contain an ABORT indication or other FATAL indication (see operation 440), in which case the confidence score might be imputed to a value such that the operation to select a shadow file system as a candidate file system (see operation 176) is performed.
In exemplary embodiments, the configuration change tracking of
The sequence frame 5A00 shows running software applications 104 in a multi-tier regime where users 505 connect to a run file system (e.g., the file system 1101) and connect to a database (e.g., within initial run edition 106) via a middle tier connectivity 515. The database may comprise an initial run edition 106, a patch edition 120, and any number of old editions 502.
The connectivity and user's connections using said connectivity can persist through the running period 226 even during the time that various operations involved in the prepare step 206, the apply step 208, and the finalize step 210 may be performed.
The sequence frame 5B00 shows one embodiment of an orderly shutdown of running applications 104 in a multi-tier regime. In some instances, users 505 are advised to disconnect from the middle tier connectivity 515, and new connections are disallowed. Regardless of the lack of connections to the middle tier, various operations can persist through the running period 226 right up to the cutover period 228. During the running period 226 and through the cutover period 228 the database is not shutdown, and the file systems remain in existence and accessible. It is during this period that certain of the editioning operations can occur, including operations on file systems (e.g., following the flow 1A00).
At some moment during the running period, activity within the running applications and application services is quiesced in readiness for further online patch cycle operations (e.g., swap of file systems, and a restart of any patched applications and any patched application services).
As indicated in the discussion of
Again, as indicated in the discussion of
The depiction of sequence frame 5E00 shows the state of the installation at a point in time during the cutover period. The middle tier now refers to the patched file system FS-2 (e.g., file system 1102), and refers to the promoted, patch edition 120 (see v07) which are now prepared to become the online version to be accessed by any patched applications and any patched application services, and are now prepared to become the online version to be accessed by users 505.
As shown, the system 600 is implemented as a series of program code modules configured to perform method steps using a processor, the method comprising:
System Architecture Overview
According to one embodiment of the disclosure, computer system 900 performs specific operations by processor 907 executing one or more sequences of one or more instructions contained in system memory 908. Such instructions may be read into system memory 908 from another computer readable/usable medium, such as a static storage device or a disk drive 910. In alternative embodiments, hard-wired circuitry may be used in place of or in combination with software instructions to implement the disclosure. Thus, embodiments of the disclosure are not limited to any specific combination of hardware circuitry and/or software. In one embodiment, the term “logic” shall mean any combination of software or hardware that is used to implement all or part of the disclosure.
The term “computer readable medium” or “computer usable medium” as used herein refers to any medium that participates in providing instructions to processor 907 for execution. Such a medium may take many forms, including but not limited to, non-volatile media and volatile media. Non-volatile media includes, for example, optical or magnetic disks, such as disk drive 910. Volatile media includes dynamic memory, such as system memory 908.
Common forms of computer readable media includes, for example, floppy disk, flexible disk, hard disk, magnetic tape, or any other magnetic medium; CD-ROM or any other optical medium; punch cards, paper tape, or any other physical medium with patterns of holes; RAM, PROM, EPROM, FLASH-EPROM, or any other memory chip or cartridge, or any other non-transitory medium from which a computer can read data.
In an embodiment of the disclosure, execution of the sequences of instructions to practice the disclosure is performed by a single instance of the computer system 900. According to certain embodiments of the disclosure, two or more computer systems 900 coupled by a communications link 915 (e.g., LAN, PTSN, or wireless network) may perform the sequence of instructions required to practice the disclosure in coordination with one another.
Computer system 900 may transmit and receive messages, data, and instructions, including programs (e.g., application code), through communications link 915 and communication interface 914. Received program code may be executed by processor 907 as it is received, and/or stored in disk drive 910 or other non-volatile storage for later execution. Computer system 900 may communicate through a data interface 933 to a database 932 on an external data repository 931. A module as used herein can be implemented using any mix of any portions of the system memory 908, and any extent of hard-wired circuitry including hard-wired circuitry embodied as a processor 907.
In the foregoing specification, the disclosure has been described with reference to specific embodiments thereof. It will, however, be evident that various modifications and changes may be made thereto without departing from the broader spirit and scope of the disclosure. For example, the above-described process flows are described with reference to a particular ordering of process actions. However, the ordering of many of the described process actions may be changed without affecting the scope or operation of the disclosure. The specification and drawings are, accordingly, to be regarded in an illustrative sense rather than restrictive sense.
The present application claims the benefit of priority to U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/707,823, entitled “ONLINE PATCHING ORCHESTRATION”, filed on Sep. 28, 2012, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/707,827, entitled “CONFIGURATION CHANGE DETECTION AND PROPAGATION”, filed on Sep. 28, 2012, and U.S. Provisional Patent Application Ser. No. 61/707,840, entitled “SYNCHRONIZING DOMAIN CONFIGURATION PARAMETERS”, filed on Sep. 28, 2012, which are all hereby incorporated by reference in their entireties; and the present application is related to co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/802,771, entitled “USING A DATA DICTIONARY TO DETERMINE AN UPGRADE EDITION OF A RELATIONAL DATABASE TABLE”, filed on even date herewith, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety; and the present application is related to co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/802,774, entitled “ONLINE UPGRADING OF A DATABASE ENVIRONMENT USING TRANSPARENTLY-PATCHED SEED DATA TABLES”, filed on even date herewith, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety; and the present application is related to co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/802,780, entitled “TRANSPARENTLY UPGRADING DERIVED DATABASE OBJECTS”, filed on even date herewith, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety; and the present application is related to co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/802,791, entitled “REDUCING DOWNTIME DURING UPGRADES OF INTERRELATED COMPONENTS IN A DATABASE SYSTEM”, filed on even date herewith, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety; and the present application is related to co-pending U.S. patent application Ser. No. 13/802,794, entitled “SYNCHRONIZATION OF CONFIGURATION CHANGES BETWEEN APPLICATIONS AND THEIR PLATFORMS”, filed on even date herewith, which is hereby incorporated by reference in its entirety.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
5227967 | Bailey | Jul 1993 | A |
5315709 | Alston et al. | May 1994 | A |
5440743 | Yokota et al. | Aug 1995 | A |
5448727 | Annevelink | Sep 1995 | A |
5555388 | Shaughnessy | Sep 1996 | A |
5608903 | Prasad et al. | Mar 1997 | A |
5640550 | Coker | Jun 1997 | A |
5717924 | Kawai | Feb 1998 | A |
5978426 | Glover et al. | Nov 1999 | A |
6016497 | Suver | Jan 2000 | A |
6122630 | Strickler et al. | Sep 2000 | A |
6122640 | Pereira | Sep 2000 | A |
6138112 | Slutz | Oct 2000 | A |
6173313 | Klots et al. | Jan 2001 | B1 |
6268850 | Ng | Jul 2001 | B1 |
6304867 | Schmidt | Oct 2001 | B1 |
6324535 | Bair et al. | Nov 2001 | B1 |
6363387 | Ponnekanti et al. | Mar 2002 | B1 |
6460055 | Midgley et al. | Oct 2002 | B1 |
6480848 | DeKimpe et al. | Nov 2002 | B1 |
6519613 | Friske et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6598059 | Vasudevan et al. | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6611848 | Bradley | Aug 2003 | B1 |
6633870 | Bradley | Oct 2003 | B1 |
6633883 | Koskas | Oct 2003 | B2 |
6681225 | Uceda-Sosa et al. | Jan 2004 | B1 |
6745209 | Holenstein et al. | Jun 2004 | B2 |
6769124 | Schoening et al. | Jul 2004 | B1 |
6801983 | Abe et al. | Oct 2004 | B2 |
6834290 | Pugh et al. | Dec 2004 | B1 |
6965899 | Subramaniam et al. | Nov 2005 | B1 |
7028057 | Vasudevan et al. | Apr 2006 | B1 |
7080371 | Arnaiz et al. | Jul 2006 | B1 |
7237238 | Peppers | Jun 2007 | B2 |
7310653 | Coyle et al. | Dec 2007 | B2 |
7350191 | Kompella et al. | Mar 2008 | B1 |
7421458 | Taylor et al. | Sep 2008 | B1 |
7574461 | Armorer et al. | Aug 2009 | B1 |
7603669 | Curtis et al. | Oct 2009 | B2 |
7689587 | Tiruveedi et al. | Mar 2010 | B1 |
7693889 | Armorer et al. | Apr 2010 | B1 |
8087013 | Kelly et al. | Dec 2011 | B2 |
8495612 | Bertrand | Jul 2013 | B2 |
8793230 | Engelko et al. | Jul 2014 | B2 |
9043778 | Lin et al. | May 2015 | B2 |
20020019972 | Grier et al. | Feb 2002 | A1 |
20020087271 | Rozenshtein et al. | Jul 2002 | A1 |
20020188600 | Lindsay et al. | Dec 2002 | A1 |
20030041127 | Turnbull | Feb 2003 | A1 |
20030154216 | Arnold et al. | Aug 2003 | A1 |
20030217069 | Fagin et al. | Nov 2003 | A1 |
20030229610 | Van Treeck | Dec 2003 | A1 |
20040064487 | Nguyen et al. | Apr 2004 | A1 |
20050015376 | Fraser et al. | Jan 2005 | A1 |
20050108733 | Bermudez et al. | May 2005 | A1 |
20050149475 | Chkodrov et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050149920 | Patrizi et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20050154695 | Gonzalez et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20060015528 | Hejlsberg et al. | Jan 2006 | A1 |
20060085457 | Gelfand | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060085465 | Nori et al. | Apr 2006 | A1 |
20060117029 | Yingst | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060130040 | Subramanian et al. | Jun 2006 | A1 |
20060242381 | Shatskih et al. | Oct 2006 | A1 |
20070038590 | Vijayan et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070038651 | Bernstein et al. | Feb 2007 | A1 |
20070061487 | Moore | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20070079140 | Metzger et al. | Apr 2007 | A1 |
20070106701 | Periyasamy | May 2007 | A1 |
20070156849 | Becker | Jul 2007 | A1 |
20070219951 | Ahmed et al. | Sep 2007 | A1 |
20080098046 | Alpern | Apr 2008 | A1 |
20080201701 | Hofhansl et al. | Aug 2008 | A1 |
20080243966 | Croisettier | Oct 2008 | A1 |
20090006884 | Cahill | Jan 2009 | A1 |
20100110474 | Coulter et al. | May 2010 | A1 |
20100281458 | Paladino | Nov 2010 | A1 |
20120222025 | Pandit | Aug 2012 | A1 |
20130104115 | Bertrand | Apr 2013 | A1 |
20130132936 | Wang | May 2013 | A1 |
20140344798 | Sasaki | Nov 2014 | A1 |
Entry |
---|
“Oracle OLAP”, Oracle, Jan. 3, 2012, 2 pages url: http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/database/options/olap/index.html. |
“Introduction to Analytic Workspaces”, Oracle OLAP DML Reference, 11g Release 1 (11.1), Part No. B28126-03, Oracle, Mar. 18, 2013, 2 pages url: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/B28359—01/olap.111/b28126/dml—basics004.htm. |
Non-final Office Action dated Feb. 12, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/802,774. |
Alan Choi, “Online Application Upgrade Using Edition-Based Redefinition”, 2009, ACM. |
Non-final Office Action dated Feb. 12, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/802,791. |
Non-final Office Action dated Mar. 27, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/802,771. |
Non-final Office Action dated Mar. 8, 2010 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/875,478. |
Advisory Action dated Jan. 26, 2010 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/444,571. |
Final Office Action dated Aug. 30, 2010 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/875,478. |
Notice of Allowance dated Mar. 21, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/444,571. |
Final Office Action dated Dec. 7, 2010 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/201,797. |
Final Office Action dated Sep. 8, 2011 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/801,495. |
Non-final Office Action dated Jan. 31, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/875,478. |
Final Office Action dated Jan. 25, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/201,797. |
Non-final Office Action dated Jun. 27, 2012 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/875,478. |
Final Office Action dated Jan. 29, 2013 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/875,478. |
Advisory Action dated Mar. 8, 2013 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/875,478. |
Final Office Action dated Mar. 29, 2013 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/801,495. |
Notice of Allowance dated Jun. 12, 2013 for U.S. Appl. No. 11/875,478. |
Notice of Allowance dated Jan. 16, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/802,780. |
Non-final Office Action dated Jul. 31, 2014 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/802,794. |
Final Office Action dated Jan. 16, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/802,794. |
Non-final Office Action dated May 21, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/802,794. |
Final Office Action dated Jul. 8, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/802,774. |
Final Office Action dated Jul. 14, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/802,791. |
Lassen et al. Experiences with object oriented development in PL!SQL, Center for Object Technology COT/4-18-V1.4, 2000. |
Object Cache Navigation, Oracle Call Interface PRogrammer's Guide, Release 2 (9.2), Part No. A96584-10, 1996,2002. |
Date et al, A Guide to SQL/DS, 1989, Addison-Wesley, Chapter 10. |
Quest Software, Inc., LiveReorg.RTM., “Reorganization for the 24.times.7, Database,” 2001. |
Paapanen, Eric et al., “Oracle Database Application Developer's Guide-Large Objects”, 10g Release 1 (10.1), Part No. B1079601, Apr. 21, 2008, 668 pages. |
Smith, Jeff, “The Shortest, Fastest, and Easiest way to compare two tables in SQL Server: Union!”, Jeffs SQL Server Blog 10, Apr. 22, 2008, 45 pages. |
T-SQL, “sp—rename (T-SQL)”, printed Apr. 22, 2008, 3 pages. |
Scott Ambler et al., “Refactoring Databases: Evolutionary Database Design”, Mar. 3, 2006, 7 pages. |
Tom Davidson, Managing Schema Changes (Part 2), MSSQL Server Development Customer Advisory Teach, Mar. 31, 2006, Microsoft Corporation, Nov. 19, 2000, http://blgs.msdn.com/squlcat/archive/2006/03/31/566046.aspx, 11 pages. |
Notice of Allowance dated May 11, 2015 for U.S. Appl. No. 13/802,780. |
Final Office Action dated Oct. 23, 2015 for related U.S. Appl. No. 13/802,771. |
Notice of Allowance and Fees Due dated Nov. 25, 2015 for related U.S. Appl. No. 13/802,774. |
Non-final Office Action dated Dec. 2, 2015 for related U.S. Appl. No. 13/802,791. |
Notice of Allowance and Fee(s) Due dated Jan. 6, 2016 for related U.S. Appl. No. 13/802 794, 6 pages. |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
20140188793 A1 | Jul 2014 | US |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
61707823 | Sep 2012 | US | |
61707827 | Sep 2012 | US | |
61707840 | Sep 2012 | US |