Re: end-of-file on communication channel

From: HumbleDBA <kamransemail_at_gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 5 Aug 2008 14:02:53 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <b6eaa26f-3515-4bbf-ab34-a3ec52f141e0@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>


On Aug 5, 12:15 pm, tool_at_panix.com (Dan Blum) wrote:
> KevinS <SearleK_at_googlemail.com> wrote:
> > Thanks gazzag,
> > One of the DBA's came up witha work araound of altering the sql as
> > follows.
> > SELECT mp.ID AS ID, mp.a2 AS a2,
> > mp.a3 AS a3,
> > ocp.code,
> > SUM(nvl(ocp.b1,0)) b1, SUM(nvl(ocp.b2,0)) b2,
> > SUM(nvl(ocp.b3,0)) b3, SUM(nvl(ocp.b4,0)) b4,
> > SUM(nvl(ocp.b5,0)) b5, SUM(nvl(ocp.b6,0)) b6,
> > SUM(nvl(ocp.b7,0)) b7, SUM(nvl(ocp.b8,0)) b8,
> > SUM(nvl(ocp.b9,0)) b9, SUM(nvl(ocp.b10,0)) b10,
> > MAX(cp.a4) a4
> > FROM alpha mp, alpha cp,
> > beta pt, gamma psp,
> > delta ocp
> > WHERE mp.ive = 1
> > AND mp.ate = 0
> > AND mp.ram = 0
> > AND mp.ID = pt.prpid
> > AND psp.prtaskid = pt.pid
> > AND cp.ID = psp.prefpid
> > AND cp.ive = 1
> > AND cp.ID = ocp.ID
> > AND ocp.code IN (SELECT code
> > FROM cl
> > WHERE cl.parent_lookup_code = 'A'
> > AND cl.ive = 1)
> > AND mp.id = 5010000
> > GROUP BY mp.ID,
> > mp.unique_name,
> > mp.NAME,
> > ocp.code;
> > It seems to have done the trick so as it's now logged here, perhaps it
> > may help someone else.
> > Anyone got an explanation for this?
>
> Does that actually produce the same result?
>
> Were any trace files produced when you got the error? Anything in the alert log?
>
> If not, I would run the problem version again with tracing on to see if it
> provides any clue.
>
> --
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Dan Blum tool_at_panix.com
> "I wouldn't have believed it myself if I hadn't just made it up."

KevinS,
ora-3113 is a catch all error. There should be another error in the alert log when the client experiences the "end of file communication"? I saw this in 10.2.0.2, but I also got a ora-7445 exception encountered in the alert log. In my case it was a bug, it could be anything in your case. Probably related to not enough resources when doing something like sorting. Thats why when the query is changed, the resultset coming back may be different, and so it does not produce the same errors. Received on Tue Aug 05 2008 - 16:02:53 CDT

Original text of this message