Some new info ?

this is still an issue in beta 4

still an issue in beta5 and it's getting worse. now you may even not see the one-dimensional varray values neither by putting the cursor over them nor by copying the variable to the watches list. please, please fix this

If it's getting worse, then maybe you need to shutdown/restart your Oracle Server. We have done nothing in PL/SQL Developer to make it worse.

marco, i believe that you'ne nothing done to make it worse. please try the same script and test at the marks. you will not see any values. tried with server restart, too.

CREATE OR REPLACE TYPE AR_NUM AS VARRAY(2147483647) OF NUMBER
/
CREATE OR REPLACE TYPE AR_AR_NUM AS VARRAY(2147483647) OF AR_NUM
/
CREATE OR REPLACE PROCEDURE DEBUG_TEST
AS
lar ar_num := ar_num();
lar_ar ar_ar_num := ar_ar_num();
ln_dummy PLS_INTEGER;
BEGIN
lar.EXTEND(10);
FOR
i IN 1..10
LOOP
--------------------------> PLACE CURSOR OVER ARRAY HERE
lar(i) := i;
END LOOP;
lar_ar.EXTEND(10);
FOR
i IN 1..10
LOOP
lar_ar(i) := lar;
END LOOP;
FOR
i IN lar_ar.FIRST..lar_ar.LAST
LOOP
FOR
e IN lar_ar(i).FIRST..lar_ar(i).LAST
LOOP
--------------------------> PLACE CURSOR OVER ARRAY HERE
ln_dummy := lar_ar(i)(e);
END LOOP;
END LOOP;
END DEBUG_TEST;
/


oracle server version is 10.2.0.2 and 9.2.0.7. if you need any addtional infos i'll send them all if they help to resolve the problem. pldev becomes unusable for me if this doesn't work.

Marco,

Did you try to reproduce the problem?

Thanks,

Laurent

Just out of interest, what possible use could anyone have for a VARRAY(2147483647) OF NUMBER?

in case of memory usage and performance it doesn't matter how big one declares a varray. 2147483647 is the highest possible size.

I mean, wouldn't it be simpler to use a normal nested table instead? Then you don't have to declare a limit of 2147483647.

VARRAYs are useful for multivalue columns in database tables, however I think the consensus is that using multivalue columns in database tables is not a good idea. Is that what they are being used for here?

It's maybe possible to use nested table instead, but anyway it would be a big change because our Varray ar_num is a type which is used in a lot of packages. We cannot change that now. And as said by sukhadukkham, it doesn't matter how big we declare a varray, 2147483647 is the highest possible size.

Pl/sql dev shouldn't freezes in this case.

For now, I just would like to know if allround can reproduce the problem. If yes, do they see any solution. For now, they didn't answer...