Weird Oracle

“It’s not a bug, it’s a feature” PL/SQL like any other procedural extension to SQL has the ability to execute dynamic statements: EXECUTE IMMEDIATE. But not everyone knows it works differently for SQL statements and PL/SQL blocks. The difference lies in parameters passing.

Consider a simple example when we need to add a new row to a table using dynamic statement:

BEGIN
  p_date := to_char(SYSDATE);
  EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'INSERT INTO test (created, modified, id, value)
      VALUES ('||p_date||', '||p_date||', '||p_id||', '||p_value||')';
END;

It works, but has a serious flaw: a new statement is compiled for every set of parameters and for every call. We should use placeholders in the statement and pass values through USING clause. To my great surprise, even experienced Oracle programmers may have problems to do it right:

BEGIN
  p_date := to_char(SYSDATE);
  EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'INSERT INTO test (created, modified, id, value)
      VALUES (:p_date, :p_date, :p_id, :p_value)';
  USING (p_date, p_id, p_value);
END;

Looks good? But id does not work. According to specification when calling SQL statements, Oracle does not even look at placeholders names but on number and order of placeholders – every placeholder needs precisely one argument on the USING list. The correct way to do it is:

BEGIN
  p_date := to_char(SYSDATE);
  EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'INSERT INTO test (created, modified, id, value)
      VALUES (:x, :x, :x, :x)';
  USING (p_date, p_date, p_id, p_value);
END;

Notice repeated p_date in using clause. Repeating of the placeholder name is also intentional – i think it might help notice that one need to be cautious when modifying this piece of code. Now to make things even more confusing, assume that we add a procedure to insert that row but still need to call it dynamically. This time Oracle will behave differently: it will now look at placeholder names and will expect only one value per placeholder name:

BEGIN
  p_date := to_char(SYSDATE);
  EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'BEGIN insert_into_test (:p_date, :p_date, :p_id, :p_value); END;';
  USING (p_date, p_id, p_value);
END;

Now the total weirdness: USING clause has no way of specifying placeholder name for each argument – here still only the order counts. Reading such a piece of code and trying to decipher which parameter gets which value may be painful:

BEGIN
  p_date := to_char(SYSDATE);
  EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'BEGIN some_proc (:p_date, :p_user, :p_date, :p_id, :p_value, :p_user); END;';
  USING (...???...);
END;

Now imagine that the dynamic block consists of several calls with some common arguments and that the block itself is created programmatically… I bet one will quickly use unique placeholder names (like :p1, :p2, :p3,…) and pass each value multiple times or give up parameter passing entirely and use string concatenation method instead. And if you are still reading this – a short riddle:

EXECUTE IMMEDIATE 'call some_proc(:a, :a, :b, :c);' USING (...);

How many values should be passed here?

You May Also Like

Inconsistent Dependency Injection to domains with Grails

I've encountered strange behavior with a domain class in my project: services that should be injected were null. I've became suspicious as why is that? Services are injected properly in other domain classes so why this one is different?

Constructors experiment

I've created an experiment. I've created empty LibraryService that should be injected and Book domain class like this:

class Book {
def libraryService

String author
String title
int pageCount

Book() {
println("Finished constructor Book()")
}

Book(String author) {
this()
this.@author = author
println("Finished constructor Book(String author)")
}

Book(String author, String title) {
super()
this.@author = author
this.@title = title
println("Finished constructor Book(String author, String title)")
}

Book(String author, String title, int pageCount) {
this.@author = author
this.@title = title
this.@pageCount = pageCount
println("Finished constructor Book(String author, String title, int pageCount)")
}

void logInjectedService() {
println(" Service libraryService is injected? -> $libraryService")
}
}
class LibraryService {
def serviceMethod() {
}
}

Book has 4 explicit constructors. I want to check which constructor is injecting dependecies. This is my method that constructs Book objects and I called it in controller:

class BookController {
def index() {
constructAndExamineBooks()
}

static constructAndExamineBooks() {
println("Started constructAndExamineBooks")
Book book1 = new Book().logInjectedService()
Book book2 = new Book("foo").logInjectedService()
Book book3 = new Book("foo", 'bar').logInjectedService()
Book book4 = new Book("foo", 'bar', 100).logInjectedService()
Book book5 = new Book(author: "foo", title: 'bar')
println("Finished constructor Book(Map params)")
book5.logInjectedService()
}
}

Analysis

Output looks like this:

Started constructAndExamineBooks
Finished constructor Book()
Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2
Finished constructor Book()
Finished constructor Book(String author)
Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2
Finished constructor Book(String author, String title)
Service libraryService is injected? -> null
Finished constructor Book(String author, String title, int pageCount)
Service libraryService is injected? -> null
Finished constructor Book()
Finished constructor Book(Map params)
Service libraryService is injected? -> eu.spoonman.refaktor.LibraryService@2affcce2

What do we see?

  1. Empty constructor injects dependencies.
  2. Constructor that invokes empty constructor explicitly injects dependencies.
  3. Constructor that invokes parent's constructor explicitly does not inject dependencies.
  4. Constructor without any explicit call declared does not call empty constructor thus it does not inject dependencies.
  5. Constructor provied by Grails with a map as a parameter invokes empty constructor and injects dependencies.

Conclusion

Always explicitily invoke empty constructor in your Grail domain classes to ensure Dependency Injection! I didn't know until today either!