Re: Utl_file.

From: DA Morgan <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Feb 2003 00:22:20 -0800
Message-ID: <3E48B2BC.3970751F_at_exesolutions.com>


bill turner wrote:

> On Mon, 10 Feb 2003 08:40:24 -0800, DA Morgan
> <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote:
>
> >bill wrote:
> >
> >> DA Morgan <damorgan_at_exesolutions.com> wrote in message news:<3E468856.4F52A011_at_exesolutions.com>...
> >> > bill turner wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > On Sat, 08 Feb 2003 06:35:25 +0100, Sybrand Bakker
> >> > > <gooiditweg_at_sybrandb.demon.nl> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > >On Fri, 07 Feb 2003 22:33:22 +0000, Alexxx12
> >> > > ><member14441_at_dbforums.com> wrote:
> >> > > >
> >> > > >>
> >> > > >>The path is correct. Why am I getting this error??
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Utl_file can't work with files on a client as it is running on the
> >> > > >server
> >> > > >
> >> > > >
> >> > > >Sybrand Bakker, Senior Oracle DBA
> >> > > >
> >> > > >To reply remove -verwijderdit from my e-mail address
> >> > > I have a similar problem as the original poster. I did some research.
> >> > > From what I read in the Oracle documenation, it is possible to use
> >> > > UTL_FILE on the client side. Unless I completely misinterpreted what
> >> > > was being said, you could use the funciton on both server and client
> >> > > side. For the the server side, however, an entry was required in
> >> > > init.ora (or some such thing). Since this is Sunday, and I do not have
> >> > > the documentation with, I cannot quote from it. I did read this in
> >> > > both the PL/SQL documentation and Supplied Products (?) documentation.
> >> > > It was exactly for the reason to understand what Oracle meant by
> >> > > client and server side or to get other input as to why I received the
> >> > > "invalid path" error. I DO think I understand what is meant by client
> >> > > side. So, assuming that I did understand the documentation properly,
> >> > > does it mean that some package needs to be installed on the client?
> >> > >
> >> > > bill
> >> >
> >> > UTL_FILE is only server side. You can dump data to the client ... but not
> >> > using UTL_FILE.
> >> >
> >> > Probably the only possible exception would be if you mapped the client to
> >> > look like a drive on the server. Something I would not advise.
> >> >
> >> > Daniel Morgan
> >>
> >> Of course, I am likely running on less than full information. However,
> >> as the quotes below show, it is understandable that I would be
> >> confused.
> >>
> >> The following is a direct quote from the PL/SQL User's Guide and
> >> Reference Release 8.1.5:
> >>
> >> "PL/SQL file I/O is available on both the client and server sides.
> >> However, on the server side, file access is restricted to those
> >> directories explicitly listed in the accessible directories list,
> >> which is stored in the Oracle initialization file"
> >>
> >> The following quote is from Oracle8i Supplied Packages Reference
> >> Release 8.1.5:
> >>
> >> "The PL/SQL file I/O feature is available for both client side and
> >> server side PL/SQL. The client implementation (text I/O) is subject to
> >> normal operating system file permission checking, and it does not need
> >> any additional security constraints. However, the server
> >> implementation might be running in a privileged mode, and will need
> >> additional security restrictions that limit the power of this
> >> feature."
> >>
> >> I am actually using 9i. This documentation was handy. Since it seems
> >> as if I interpreted this incorrectly, what does it mean to have this
> >> feature available for both client and server side?
> >>
> >> What is TEXT_IO? I could not find any information on that. I could I
> >> use that? If not, how, then, can I write a file to the client (Win
> >> 2000) rather than the server (Sun Solaris)?
> >>
> >> Bill
> >
> >Yes and no. PL/SQL I/O is not UTL_FILE. I'm not sure how one would assume that they were synonymous.
> >
> >TEXT_IO is a built-in package in Oracle Forms.
> >
> >Daniel Morgan
>
> Okay, well, both of those quotes were in sections discussing UTL_FILE
> specifically, there was no indication that the topic was changed to
> some other form of output. Therefore, it was quite easy to assume they
> were synonymous. In fact, I still read it that way, though,
> undoubtedly you are correct. Rather, it is just poorly written
> documentation.

"Poorly written documentation"? Is there another kind?

Well other than the stuff Peter Sharman has written which is truly brilliant; or so I've been told.

Daniel Morgan Received on Tue Feb 11 2003 - 09:22:20 CET

Original text of this message