Hey all, have a user having a problem now trying to get a listing of
tables via 'link tables' operation MS Access, this is after the login
dialog. I can see the session connect and stays active until I
eventually have to kill the session. Looking at the sql it's running:
SELECT count(*)
FROM user$ u, xdb.xdb$schema s
WHERE u.user# = :1
AND u.name = s.xmldata.schema_owner
AND xdb.xdb$extname2intname(s.xmldata.schema_url,
s.xmldata.schema_owner) = :2
Anyone have any ideas, besides upgrading? I have updated dictionary
stats, System stats are set and have not changed.
TIA,
Pete's
You're logging into a database as SYSDBA using MS Access? Why?
-g
I would try to isolate whether it is the query or ODBC.
So I would turn it into a passthru query, or run it in sqlplus,
preferably on the server.
BTW: Please do NOT use the sys *tables* directly. Oracle doesn't
guarantee their existence in future releases.
--
Sybrand Bakker
Senior Oracle Dba
I'm not logging in as "sysdba".
The point I'm at is where you log in via the odbc connection, you type
your userid/password, press ok. It sits there and you are waiting for
a list of tables to be displayed. The sql I gleaned from the database
is what either Oracle or Microsoft was running while waiting for a
table list. I would agree with using sqlplus, however, the user(s)
are insisting on using msaccess. Sqlplus, Sqlworksheet, Toad, .....
all work. I know Access does not handle this table list too well when
a user has a large number of tables they have rights too. My only
other thoughts are windows patches may have been installed, no db or
server patches were installed.
TIA,
Pete's
Pete's
A lot of thoughts:
1. Apply patches. You haven't patched your database in years.
2. Check for an upgraded ODBC driver.
3. Stop using MS Access as a front-end. It is insecure junk.
4. Reconsider the advisability of accessing catalog tables the way you are.
5. Run your query as an Explain Plan. Produce output with DBMS_XPLAN.
And post it if there is something you don't understand.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
Oracle Ace Director & Instructor
University of Washington
damo...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
Puget Sound Oracle Users Group
www.psoug.org
There is no way you should be logging in with MS Access and seeing
user$ under normal circumstances. If you can see it then you should
explain what system privs/roles were granted that allow it.
What you are describing is possibly a gross security breach.
Again note, I'm not seeing user$ via Access, this is what I queried
out of the database of what the session was running. It's either a
piece of sql that Oracle runs behind the scenes, or, what Access
runs. In other words, the user is trying to get MS Access to get them
a list of objects and it's not coming up.
I don't disagree with you in regards to patching, it needs to get done
but has not. I also don't disagree with the use of Access as a front
end but I do not have control over that, I'm not the application
developer.
Pete's
Wrong!
You can't query what you can't see. Your statement clearly indicates
that you can see USER$ and other catalog tables owned by SYS.
--
Daniel A. Morgan
Oracle Ace Director & Instructor
University of Washington
damo...@x.washington.edu (replace x with u to respond)
While looking for something completely different, I stumbled over
this: http://download.oracle.com/docs/cd/B19306_01/appdev.102/b14259/xdb26imp.htm#sthref2432
I have no clue about xdb, but I'm wondering if there is something
special about it that is influencing your problem.
jg
--
@home.com is bogus.
Revenge is a dish best served hidden away in secret dark places no one
will ever find. http://www.signonsandiego.com/uniontrib/20080725/news_1n25revenge.html
Thanks for the response Joel, not sure if it's related either, I'll
check into it. For now I solved the problem with patching the client
to the latest, 10.2.0.4, also found that the 11.1.0.6 client works
too. Additional testing found that any connection to a database with
less than 10,000 objects worked fine. After much digging, I also
found an issue another person had where they had pinpointed the number
of objects to be around 32,768 where they started experiencing
problems similar to this.
Thanks,
Pete's