PLAN_TABLE question: value too large for statement_id 1

[SJSFoxPro]

I had been getting a message that I was using the old version of the plan_table when using dbms_xplan package. I dropped the old plan tables (sys.plan_table$, system.plan_table, schema_owner.plan_table). I then created the new plan table sys.plan_table$ using the 10g provided script catplan.sql. I have verified that it includes a public synonym and grants to public.

I no longer get the error message when using dbms_xplan, however, my TOAD users are now unable to use Explain Plan. They have pointed to this new table in their TOAD options, but they can't get Explain Plan to work. They keep getting the error message "ORA-00604: error occurred at the recursive SQL level. ORA-12899: value too large for column "SYS"."PLAN_TABLE$"."STATEMENT_ID" (actual: 31, maximum: 30).

Can anyone give me pointers to anything else required that we might be missing?

Thank you for any help you can provide!

 

[LKBrwnDBA]

It's a bug, I hit it once before.
Work-around is to just increase the size of the column.



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The person who says it can't be done should not interrupt the person doing it. -- Chinese proverb

 

[SJSFoxPro]

Thank you! It worked perfectly to resolve the issue. Seems like a "no brainer", although, I was hoping for something official from Metalink/Oracle before I made this a common practice. I can't find anything from Oracle to indicate this is a known bug - seems like there should be something!

But, nonetheless, it helps to have another DBA backing up the claim!

 

[LKBrwnDBA]

There is a Metalink note on this (or maybe an SR?).



----------------------------------------------------------------------------
The person who says it can't be done should not interrupt the person doing it. -- Chinese proverb

 

[SJSFoxPro]

Thank you for the update! I had originally searched everything I could think of in Metalink. If you happen to bump into the Note or I do, we should post the reference here just for continuity.

Nonetheless, I really appreciated you fast-tracking the solution and getting me past the issue!