Skip to main content

One exception handler for all packaged subprograms?


This question was submitted as a comment in one of my videos today:
Do we have to include an exception section for each individual subprogram or can we have a single handler for all subprograms?
The quick answer is: if you want an exception raised in a procedure or function defined in a package, you need to add an exception to that subprogram.

I can certainly see why this question would come up. A package body can have its own exception handler. Here's an example:
CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE pkg
   AUTHID DEFINER
IS
   PROCEDURE proc;
END;
/

CREATE OR REPLACE PACKAGE BODY pkg
IS
   PROCEDURE proc
   IS
   BEGIN
      RAISE NO_DATA_FOUND;
   END;
BEGIN
   NULL;
EXCEPTION
   WHEN NO_DATA_FOUND
   THEN
      DBMS_OUTPUT.put_line ('Was proc executed?');
END;
/
And it kinda, sorta looks like if I execute the following block, I will see "Was proc executed?" on my screen.
BEGIN
   pkg.proc;
END;
/
But I would be wrong. Instead, I will see:
ORA-01403: no data found
ORA-06512: at "QDB_PROD.PKG", line 6
But, but, but....what's going on here? I explicitly handle NO_DATA_FOUND right there at the bottom of the package.

What's going on is that the exception handler only looks like it is a handler for the entire package. In actually, it can only possibly handle exceptions raised by the executable code between the BEGIN and EXCEPTION keywords underneath the proc procedure.

This is called the initialization section of the package.  It is designed - you guessed it - initialize the state of the package (set values, perform QA checks, etc.). It runs once per session to initialize the package.

HOWEVER: in stateless environments like websites, this code may well execute each time a user references a package element (runs a subprogram, gets the value of a variable). So these days, it would be rare to find an initialization section in a package, and probably something to generally avoid.

The bottom line when it comes to exception handling for subprograms in a package is simple: you must include an exception section in each of those subprograms. The code that is executed in each of those subprograms could be shared. And should be. You should use a generic error logging API like the open source Logger, so that everyone handles, logs and re-raises exceptions in the same way.


Comments

  1. For a moment I thought there was a feature I had actually overlooked all those years and wasn't aware of. Glad to see I've been implementing exception handling in my packages the right way after all. ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I just watched the recording of yesterday's Office Hours and I understood that the question was also about the alternatives available when having a call stack of several procedures: to handle each exception locally vs to let everything to propagate to the outermost level.
    Maybe a good topic for a deeper insight in one of the upcoming Office Hours sessions :)

    Thanks a lot & Best Regards,
    Iudith Mentzel

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Quick Guide to User-Defined Types in Oracle PL/SQL

A Twitter follower recently asked for more information on user-defined types in the PL/SQL language, and I figured the best way to answer is to offer up this blog post. PL/SQL is a strongly-typed language . Before you can work with a variable or constant, it must be declared with a type (yes, PL/SQL also supports lots of implicit conversions from one type to another, but still, everything must be declared with a type). PL/SQL offers a wide array of pre-defined data types , both in the language natively (such as VARCHAR2, PLS_INTEGER, BOOLEAN, etc.) and in a variety of supplied packages (e.g., the NUMBER_TABLE collection type in the DBMS_SQL package). Data types in PL/SQL can be scalars, such as strings and numbers, or composite (consisting of one or more scalars), such as record types, collection types and object types. You can't really declare your own "user-defined" scalars, though you can define subtypes  from those scalars, which can be very helpful from the p

The differences between deterministic and result cache features

 EVERY once in a while, a developer gets in touch with a question like this: I am confused about the exact difference between deterministic and result_cache. Do they have different application use cases? I have used deterministic feature in many functions which retrieve data from some lookup tables. Is it essential to replace these 'deterministic' key words with 'result_cache'?  So I thought I'd write a post about the differences between these two features. But first, let's make sure we all understand what it means for a function to be  deterministic. From Wikipedia : In computer science, a deterministic algorithm is an algorithm which, given a particular input, will always produce the same output, with the underlying machine always passing through the same sequence of states.  Another way of putting this is that a deterministic subprogram (procedure or function) has no side-effects. If you pass a certain set of arguments for the parameters, you will always get

How to Pick the Limit for BULK COLLECT

This question rolled into my In Box today: In the case of using the LIMIT clause of BULK COLLECT, how do we decide what value to use for the limit? First I give the quick answer, then I provide support for that answer Quick Answer Start with 100. That's the default (and only) setting for cursor FOR loop optimizations. It offers a sweet spot of improved performance over row-by-row and not-too-much PGA memory consumption. Test to see if that's fast enough (likely will be for many cases). If not, try higher values until you reach the performance level you need - and you are not consuming too much PGA memory.  Don't hard-code the limit value: make it a parameter to your subprogram or a constant in a package specification. Don't put anything in the collection you don't need. [from Giulio Dottorini] Remember: each session that runs this code will use that amount of memory. Background When you use BULK COLLECT, you retrieve more than row with each fetch,