My understanding is OUT formal parameters should always be defaulted to NULL when the procedure is called.
create or replace package parameter_tests as
procedure callerproc;
end parameter_tests;
/
create or replace package body parameter_tests as
procedure getstring(p_str out varchar) is
begin
if p_str is null then
dbms_output.put_line('parameter null');
else
dbms_output.put_line('parameter NOT null');
end if;
p_str :='zz';
end getstring;
procedure getcursor(p_out out sys_refcursor) is
begin
if p_out%isopen then
dbms_output.put_line('cursor open');
else
dbms_output.put_line('cursor closed');
end if;
open p_out for
select *
from dual;
end getcursor;
procedure callerproc is
lv_cursor sys_refcursor;
lv_string varchar2(2) := null;
begin
for i in 1..2 loop
getstring(lv_string);
getcursor(lv_cursor);
end loop;
end callerproc;
end parameter_tests;
/
set serveroutput on
begin
parameter_tests.CALLERPROC;
end;
/
parameter_tests.getstring would expect to output "Parameter null" both times around the callerproc loop. And when you run the code that's exactly what happens.
However the output from parameter_tests.getcursor indicates the reference cursor is still open the second time around the loop.
If the formal parameter p_out was being nulled when getcursor was called, we'd expect it to close the reference cursor. Instead it passes the open reference cursor and it's actually the OPEN FOR that tidies up the open reference cursor (and prevents us from hitting the maximum open cursors if you loop hundreds of times).
If I manually null the reference cursor between calls it does behave like we would expect.
Can anyone tell me why reference cursors are being handled as a special case when they are OUT parameters? And also what other types are handled differently?
The database version is 11.2.0.2.0.
According to the documentation:
When declaring a cursor variable as the formal parameter of a subprogram:
If the subprogram opens or assigns a value to the cursor variable, then the parameter mode must be IN OUT.
If the subprogram only fetches from, or closes, the cursor variable, then the parameter mode can be either IN or IN OUT.
The cursor parameter seems to be treated as if it had been declared as IN OUT, even though you only actually declare it as OUT. The behaviour is what you would expect to see from IN OUT; you can even fetch the cursor in the second call, and see the dummy value from dual.
It sort of makes sense given the nature of the ref cursor as a pointer, but you would think that rule would be enforced by the compiler erroring if only OUT was specified (and it isn't even reported as a warning). The example in the docs works fine with just OUT too, incidentally.
So really this looks like a compiler bug since it doesn't report the incorrect parameter direction; but also (more tenuously!) a bug in your code because it isn't declared as IN OUT. And, possibly, a further bug because you don't explicitly close the cursor - which does appear to 'fix' the issue too, sort of:
procedure callerproc is
lv_cursor sys_refcursor;
lv_string varchar2(20) := null;
begin
for i in 1..2 loop
getstring(lv_string);
getcursor(lv_cursor);
close lv_cursor;
end loop;
end callerproc;
which is probably more correct than assigning null to the cursor variable, which you mentioned also works.
Related
It's said in database PL/SQL language reference in topic 10.1 What is a package? that:
If the public items include cursors or subprograms, then the package must also have a body. The body must define queries for public cursors and code for public subprograms.
I've tested cursor package spec without body and it worked fine (in DB version 19c):
create or replace package some_pak is
cursor c is select * from employees where employee_id <102;
end;
begin
for i in some_pak.c
loop
dbms_output.put_line(i.employee_id|| ' '||i.first_name||' '|| i.salary);
end loop;
end;
Result:
100 Steven 24000
101 Neena 17000
What am I doing or understanding wrong?
I am preparing for 1z0-149 exam and want to know accurate information.
It is a bit misleading, but if you take the previous paragraph from the documentation into account:
A package always has a specification, which declares the public items that can be referenced from outside the package.
... and stress the declares in that, then it sort of makes sense; if you only declare a cursor, rather than declaring and defining as your example does, then you do need a body too. For example, your specification could do:
create or replace package some_pak is
cursor c return dual%rowtype;
end;
/
But if you tried to reference that cursor you'd get "ORA-04067: not executed, package body ... does not exist".
You would then need to define the cursor in the package body, e.g.:
create or replace package body some_pak is
cursor c return dual%rowtype is
select * from dual;
end;
/
Notice that you need to declare the return type, in both the specification and body. In your original version that isn't necessary, but here the declaration still has to tell callers the structure of the data the cursor will return. That is the API contract, if you like.
Declaring and defining the cursor separately means you can redefine the cursor by recompiling just the package body (as long as the projection remains the same, of course), avoiding invalidating anything that refers to it - as would happen if you recompiled the specification.
db<>fiddle
Splitting the declaration and definition would also allow you to hide (albeit not very securely) the actual cursor query by wrapping the package body, without wrapping the specification. Whether that would ever be useful is another matter, but thought it might be worth mentioning anyway.
I apologize for this relatively simple question but I am new to Oracle and DBMS Workspace Manager. I have a stored procedure that checks the current workspace and if it differs from the workspace being passed in it will execute the DBMS_WM.GOTOWORKSPACE. All the examples show using EXEC while calling DBMS_WM.GOTOWORKSPACE but when I have the following syntax inside TOAD it says its invalid, if I take the EXEC off no errors shown.
Which is correct?
//Toad Does not like this synatx
IF UPPER(l_current_workspace) != UPPER(i_workspace) THEN
EXEC DBMS_WM.GOTOWORKSPACE (i_workspace);
END IF;
OR
//TOAD is fine with this
IF UPPER(l_current_workspace) != UPPER(i_workspace) THEN
DBMS_WM.GOTOWORKSPACE (i_workspace);
END IF;
I would guess that the examples are in a form something like EXEC DBMS_WM.GOTOWORKSPACE (<>);and not between a conditionalIF...END IF;`
EXEC is not a PLSQL reserved word. It is a macro/shortcut in the client rather than the database server, that expands to wrap the statement it precedes into a BEGIN ... END; block.
It is used very widely on the command-line (SQLPlus and SQLcl) and editors like Toad and SQLDeveloper et al. often support it, but it is supported as a monolithic command only (EXEC as a prelude to the block) rather than inside of the block (Nested EXEC is not supported, nor is an EXEC inside of another BEGIN...END; block).
Since it isn't a reserved word, expanding it when it is in another block is a problem. Parsing it becomes ambiguous -- one could define one's own function called EXEC and it would be perfectly valid to run in a PLSQL block. The editor would then need to make an uncertain call about what to do when it encountered the word. The below example would break if EXEC were expanded instead of being recognized as a procedure in the PLSQL block:
CREATE PROCEDURE EXEC(PARAM_1 IN VARCHAR2)
IS
BEGIN
DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE(UTL_LMS.FORMAT_MESSAGE('Param is:[%s]',PARAM_1));
END EXEC;
/
BEGIN
EXEC('VOLTRON');
END;
/
So the second example is correct (presuming it is housed in another BEGIN...END; block), and is universally compatible since it doesn't need to be intercepted and modified client-side.
This is a simple sql statement used to print 2 different questions based on the choice entered. I notice that both statements are run even though the else or if condition is not true. The output printed is correct but I don't require the substitution variable to prompt user for entry if the statement is not true.
SET SERVEROUTPUT ON;
DECLARE
choice number(2) := '&Please_Enter_Choice';
question varchar2(50);
BEGIN
if choice = 1 then
question := '&Whats_your_name?';
else
if choice = 2 then
question := '&How_old_are_you?';
end if;
end if;
DBMS_OUTPUT.PUT_LINE(question);
END;
Substitution variables like &Please_Enter_Choice are replaced in a preprocessing step that takes p!ace (on the client) before the actual code is run (on the server). Please also keep in mind that support for these variables is a feature of the frontend tool (e.g. sql*plus), while the database does not even know they ever existed. Conclusion: you cannot make interactive PL/SQL scripts like that.
I'll post a trivial example, which actually works, just to get an approximate picture of what I'm trying to achieve:
Here is the 'inner' function which takes the data from some table, called test_tab:
create or replace function test_inner RETURN num_typ PIPELINED
IS
BEGIN
FOR cur in (
SELECT x FROM test_tab
)
LOOP
PIPE ROW(cur.x);
END LOOP;
END;
/
Here is the 'outer' function which uses the result of inner function and transforms them appropriately:
create or replace function test_outer RETURN num_typ PIPELINED
IS
BEGIN
FOR x IN (
SELECT * FROM table(test_inner())
)
LOOP
PIPE ROW(x.column_value * 2);
END LOOP;
END;
/
And here is how I use it:
begin
execute immediate 'insert into test_tab(x) values(1)';
execute immediate 'insert into test_tab(x) values(2)';
execute immediate 'insert into test_tab(x) values(3)';
FOR x IN (
select * from table(test_outer())
) LOOP
DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line(x.column_value);
END LOOP;
end;
/
The problem is that test_inner function seems to be ignored by Oracle. When it is called separately, it 'sees' the data inserted prior to its execution. But when it's called as a part of test_outer it doesn't return any data, or maybe doesn't get called at all.
Like I said, the above example will work. But my case is a little bit more complex, so I can't post it entirely.
The test case you have posted does not reproduce the problem you claim to be seeing. So it is not a test case.
#AlexPoole has provided you with some other ideas. Basically there is nothing further we can do unless you can post a better test case, given that you cannot post the entire things (and we don't want to go through hundreds of lines of somebody else's shonky code - I for one get enough of that debugging my own stuff).
Producing a poor test case has not been a waste of time. At least you can rule out certain things: it's nothing to do with one pipelined function calling another. So it's clearly something in your specific implementation. Perhaps not in the internal function logic, but how they are called, the data they work with or some other part of the infrastructure.
All you can do is analyse the individual parts. Start with the core component, and build out, adding other components until you find the bit which breaks. Yes this is a tedious chore. But from your comments it sounds like you're quite a way through this process already.
I'm marking this CW as it isn't an answer to the question, just an extended comment.
Your both pipelined functions in fact are syntactic wrong: you are missing RETURN
See docs
I have this code:
procedure EstablishCommunication;
var
State : TStates;
Attempts : Byte;
procedure IncAttempts;
begin
Inc(Attempts);
end;
begin
State := stReadDeviceID;
Attempts := 0;
while True do
begin
if Attempts >= MAX_ATTEMPTS then
begin
State := stError;
end;
case State of
stReadDeviceID:
begin
// some code
IncAttempts;
end;
stError:
begin
// Error code
end;
...
...
...
I'd like to put the code that set state to stError within of the procedure IncAttempts, resulting:
procedure EstablishCommunication;
var
State : TStates;
Attempts : Byte;
procedure IncAttempts;
begin
Inc(Attempts);
if Attempts >= MAX_ATTEMPTS then
begin
State := stError;
end;
end;
begin
State := stReadDeviceID;
Attempts := 0;
while True do
begin
case State of
stReadDeviceID:
begin
// some code
IncAttempts;
end;
stError:
begin
// Error code
end;
...
...
...
So, can I move the code to IncAttempts?
Is this a code smell?
If yes, Can you advice me a better way?
I would see this as perfect valid code. I ask myself the following questions when declaring a method inside another. Most of the time I don't do it, but sometimes it's results in better code.
Will the internal function ever need to change as in a descendant class?
Can I override External method without calling the internal method and be OK?
Does the internal function have practical application outside of external method?
Is the internal function complex enough that it should be unit tested outside the scope of there external method?
If any of the above apply don't use an Internal Method.
However if if you don't have any of the above, and it can remove repeated code and/or simplify the design then you can consider using a internal function.
No real problem with that, should work just fine. You are already modifying another local variable Attempts so there is no reason why modifying State should smell more.
I do think you should be careful of using inline functions to much. The code often ends up hard to read/understand.
I would say that the new code have some whiff...
It all depends on how many states you manage in current code, and if the number of states could change in the future. Beware of how and when you set the state, and beware of how and when you check the state.
In the two code snippets you show, there is a minor difference:
In the first, original code, the current state is preserved through the iteration, and the new error-state is set in the beginning of the iteration, and it is always checked.
In the second, refactored code, the state is changed in the middle of the iteration, and it is only altered if the state is stReadDeviceID.
Now, if the last line in this while True do-iteration is if State = stError then Break;, then your first code will run the iteration one more time, changing the state to stError in the beginning if the iteration. Your second code will exit at the end of the current iteration, and the code in the stError-section of the case-statement will never be executed...
If you want to go all the way, and study the GoF's State Design Pattern, then take a look at these pages:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_pattern (no Delphi code...)
http://sourcemaking.com/design_patterns/state (with Delphi code!)
http://www.dofactory.com/Patterns/PatternState.aspx (no Delphi code...)
http://conferences.embarcadero.com/article/32129#_Toc12157322 (with Delphi code!)