Re: DBD-Oracle stored proc with array bug

Okay, I'll keep my eyes on the list, at least until then. :)

John Scoles wrote, on or about 12/14/2010 12:43 PM:
>
> Ok thanks for that.
>
> At first glance this looks like it might fix another reported bug and it
> is doing some work for me as I wanted to add in
>
> OCIServerRelease_log for my own selfish reasons so thanks for that:)
>
> It will be going into 1.28 as 1.27 is reserved for a PERL_POLLUTE release which should be out soon
>
> Cheers
> John Scoles
>
> On 14/12/2010 10:39 AM, Tim Oertel wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> We were recently trying to pass an array to a stored procedure.
>> It worked fine the first call, but subsequent calls were receiving
>> the wrong array size, and with old array entries.
>>
>> After some investigation, it looks like once an array parameter
>> is used with a given size array, it ignores any future array length.
>>
>> i.e.
>>
>> @array_of_something = (1, 2, 3, 4, 5);
>>
>> $sth->bind_param(1, \@array_of_something, {
>>     ora_type =>  ORA_NUMBER_TABLE,
>>     ora_internal_type =>  SQLT_INT });
>> $sth->execute();
>>
>> @array_of_something = (6, 7, 8);
>>
>> $sth->bind_param(1, \@array_of_something, {
>>     ora_type =>  ORA_NUMBER_TABLE,
>>     ora_internal_type =>  SQLT_INT });
>> $sth->execute();
>>
>> ...doesn't do what is expected.  The stored proceedure
>> receives an array of (6, 7, 8, 4, 5), in the second execute().
>>
>>
>> In the process of debugging that, we grabbed newer versions of
>> DBD::Oracle,
>> to check if a more recent version had a fix, and lacking that, creating
>> a patch against svn.
>>
>> Turned out we ran into a second bug, our dev system has recent Oracle
>> libraries on it, but our db is Oracle 9.2, and (after investigation) it
>> looks like there is a known issue with Oracle 10.2 libs, doing a ping
>> against 9.2, which causes a listener crash (I think).
>>
>> The fix for that was to revert to the server version check if the server
>> is too old.
>>
>>
>> So, I've attached a patch, plus a test case for the first problem.
>> The patch is a patch against svn, 14564.  It was tested on a Linux
>> box, with 10.2.0.3 client libs and 9.2.0.8.0 server, also running on
>> Linux.
>>
>>
>> If I've screwed up formatting, or need to do this differently, let me
>> know, and I'll try to fix it.  If the fixes are wrong, I'm all ears
>> on that too.
>>
>>
>


-- 
Tim Oertel       |"Why should I be content to simply
VP Engineering   | live in this world, when I, as a
Ashergroup, Inc. | human being, can CREATE it?!"
585-586-0020     | IM via google/XMPP: [email protected]