Re: put_line: any way to have nonbuffered output?

From: Gerard H. Pille <ghp_at_skynet.be>
Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2011 22:35:53 +0200
Message-ID: <4e8e10f4$0$5047$ba620e4c_at_news.skynet.be>



Mark D Powell wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2:26 am, geos<g..._at_nowhere.invalid> wrote:
>> Gerard H. Pille wrote:
>>>> session 1:http://geos2005.republika.pl/sesja1.sql
>>>> session 2:http://geos2005.republika.pl/sesja2.sql
>>
>>>> pl/sql (2) can "communicate" with pl/sql (1) but the latter one can't
>>>> display until it is finished.
>>
>>> The reading side of dbms_pipe should be handled by a PRO*C or Java
>>> program, and spool output immediately.
>>
>> do I understand right, that Pro*C means running the compiled output as
>> system program, not "inside" sqlplus as it is with anonymous block, and
>> to display the messages appropriate Pro*C "display function" should be
>> used?
>>
>> thank you,
>> geos
>
> The dbms_pipe package, which should generally not be used in a RAC
> environment, is a mean to pass data between two Oracle sessions. The
> first session packs the data into the pipe and the second session
> unpacks the data from the pipe. Depending on your version you can
> find information on this Oracle provided package in the PL/SQL
> Packages and Types manual or Supplied PL/SQL Packages and Types
> Reference.
>
> If you used dbms_pipe instead of dbms_output a pro*C program could
> unpack the pipe concurrently to the first session filling the pipe and
> write out the output or insert it into a table independently of the
> first session transaction.
>
> An alternate approach that work in a RAC environment would be to
> substitute a logging routine for dbms_output where the logging routine
> was written as an anonymous transaction; however, you would have to
> read the results from a separate session so neither of these
> approaches may be of any use if what you want is for the current
> session to see the dbms_output as it is generated on the current
> session screen.
>
> HTH -- Mark D Powell --
>
>

"anonymous transaction" being "autonomous transaction" ? Received on Thu Oct 06 2011 - 15:35:53 CDT

Original text of this message