One thing to bear in mind when using a glogin.sql - any settings set therein
can be superseded in the individual scripts, if set there.
Lookout for a FREE video by Oracle's Chris Saxon, who discusses changes to
column name lengths etc in 12c.
The video is titled "12 Things Developers Will Love About Oracle Database 12c
On Apr 13, 2017, at 1:50 PM, Stephan Uzzell <stephan.uzzell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A lot of columns got bumped up significantly in size in 12c. desc dba_objects
in a 12c and 11g database to see. Owner, subobject_name, and edition_name
have all been bumped from 30 to 128.
I’m almost certain that’s what you’re running into. I don’t know an easy
workaround other than, as you described, formatting the columns.
We’ve been playing with changing them in glogin.sql that we can then push out
to all our servers, rather than updating each and every script.
Hope that helps,
Stephan Uzzell | Sr. Database Engineer | +1 410.227.6732
Oracle Cloud for Industry | Cloud Database Operations
Swarthmore, PA | US
From: Sandra Becker [mailto:sbecker6925@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, April 13, 2017 4:13 PM
To: oracle-l <oracle-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: SQL result formatting on TO_CHAR different in 12c
Oracle EE 18.104.22.168, 2-node RAC
We recently upgraded from 22.214.171.124 to 126.96.36.199. We have several scripts
running out of crontab to monitor various aspects of our applications. The
analysts are seeing different formatting of the results of these scripts in
12c than they did in 11g.
11g - all output was on one line - linesize set to 1000, only 10 columns,
date, timestamp, and number formats. In the script, they use TO_CHAR to get
the desired format.
12c - no changes to the script; now each column is on a separate line. If I
set linesize to 10000, I see the expect behavior with a whole lot of
whitespace between columns.
I still had copy of this production database that I used to practice the
upgrade. I went in and changed the parameter permit_92_wrap_format to false.
Behavior reverted back to what we saw in 11g. However, I'm not convinced
this is the right workaround.
Has anyone else see this behavior? We have a lot of scripts and changing all
of them to use a column alias and column formatting (which should have been
done in the first place) would be a major undertaking. I haven't found any
bugs on MOS related to this yet or any useful information in the Oracle docs.
My co-worker is opening an SR, but no response yet.
Thank you in advance for any guidance.