Re: Pro*C, Dynamic SQL Method 4 and Host Arrays

From: Mike Krolewski <mkrolewski_at_rii.com>
Date: Fri, 22 Dec 2000 14:16:42 GMT
Message-ID: <91vno7$7p9$1_at_nnrp1.deja.com>


[Quoted] In article <B6682737.4C17%jbotwick_at_nc.rr.com>,   Jason Botwick <jbotwick_at_nc.rr.com> wrote:
> I have an application written in Pro*C that uses Dynamic SQL Method 4
 with
> host arrays. Under Oracle 7.3.x, it worked. But under Oracle 8.x, it
 doesn't
> work. When a statement using host arrays, built using Method 4 is
 run, it
> bombs out with ORA-01084, which is "invalid argument in OCI call".
 This
> error didn't even exist in Oracle 7.x.
>
> So my question is, has anyone run into this problem? If so, what did
 you do
> about it? I'm having a hard time debugging this, because no Oracle
 docs I
> can find are very specific about how to use host arrays with Method
 4. So
> I'm stumped about how to figure out what the valid values are for all
 these
> OCI calls, if I can even figure out which one is bombing out.
>
> The sample programs with our release or Oracle work, but again, they
 don't
> use host arrays and M4.
>
> Does anyone know where I can get a relatively simple example in Pro*C
 that
> does use both, compile and runs?
>
>

[Quoted] This error is somewhat perplexing. ProC does not use the OCI library and therefore should not have this error.

You might want to use your debugger to locate the specific line that the error is occuring on ie which specific SQL statement that is having the error.

[Quoted] If the sample code is working, things are most likely set up correctly. [Quoted] I am assuming that you have an array of indicator variables for each row of the host array.

It is possible that you currently have a variable that is incorrectly typed. Oracle 7.3.4 seems to be less sensitive to this error.

If you post the code, people may be able to assist more.

Also check your error message. ORA-1084 is unlikely to be an OCI error. [Quoted] I do not have my manuals or CD in front of me but 1043 is no records found. I would suspect that 1084 has something to do with a field within a fetch.

--
Michael Krolewski
Rosetta Inpharmatics
mkrolewski_at_rii.com
              Usual disclaimers


Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Received on Fri Dec 22 2000 - 15:16:42 CET

Original text of this message