Re: Limits of PL/SQL FOR...LOOP variable?

The data type for index variables is implicitly PLS_INTEGER

https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/21/lnpls/plsql-control-statements.html#GUID-F8D95A75-6475-439E-B3F1-BB3D683E1751

From 21c you can override this in the loop definition:

DECLARE
  sseq NUMBER:=2147483646;
  eseq NUMBER:=2147483648;
BEGIN
  FOR x NUMBER IN sseq..eseq LOOP
    dbms_output.put_line(TO_CHAR(x));
  END LOOP;
END;
/

2147483646
2147483647
2147483648

On Tue, 27 Sept 2022 at 18:10, Rich J <rich242j_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> Howdy,
>
> In 19.16, a dev has a quick anonymous block that fails with "ORA-1426:
> numeric overflow". It appears that the FOR...LOOP has a limit of 2G-1. I
> can't see where that would be documented or there's some implicit typing
> going on that I'm missing. From experimentation:
>
> DECLARE
> sseq NUMBER:=2147483647;
> eseq NUMBER:=2147483647;
> BEGIN
> FOR x IN sseq..eseq LOOP
> dbms_output.put_line(TO_CHAR(x));
> END LOOP;
> /
>
> This works. Bumping the end sequence up by 1 and it fails at the FOR
> statement with ORA-1426 and nothing is output, so at compile time. I've
> tried adding an explicit declaration of "x", changing them all to
> NUMBER(12) or PLS_INTEGER, but still get the same error. I can't find any
> reference to this limit at:
>
>
> https://docs.oracle.com/en/database/oracle/oracle-database/19/refrn/database-limits.htm
>
> Am I missing something (very possible) or is this an undocumented limit?
>
> Thanks,
> Rich
>

-- 
Thanks,
Chris
blogs.oracle.com/sql
Twitter: _at_chrisrsaxon

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l