DBIF_RSQL_INVALID_CURSOR — DBIF_RSQL_INVALID_CURSOR runtime error
DBIF_RSQL_INVALID_CURSOR fires when ABAP code tries to FETCH from a database cursor that the database no longer recognizes as open. The overwhelming majority of occurrences trace back to a COMMIT WORK executed between OPEN CURSOR and the matching CLOSE CURSOR, since a commit implicitly closes every open cursor on that database connection.
This page covers the runtime error raised when an Open SQL cursor becomes invalid mid-fetch, most commonly because a COMMIT WORK was issued while the cursor was still being iterated. It walks through the ST22 fields that pinpoint the offending FETCH statement, the resolution path depending on whether the cause is code logic or a dropped database session, and the code-review habit that stops it recurring.
Published 16 Sept 2026· 1,320 words
What the dump means
This dump belongs to the DBIF_RSQL family of database interface exceptions, raised when the ABAP runtime issues a FETCH against a cursor handle that the underlying database connection has already discarded. A cursor is a server-side pointer into a result set opened by OPEN CURSOR (or an implicit SELECT ... ENDSELECT loop). Once opened, that pointer is only valid as long as the database session and transaction context it was created in remain unchanged. Anything that resets the transaction context on that connection - most notably a commit - silently invalidates every open cursor, even ones the program still believes are usable. The next FETCH against that handle finds nothing there and the kernel raises this short dump rather than returning garbage rows. It is a database interface exception, not a memory or authorization problem, and it always points back to a sequencing error in the calling ABAP code or an external disruption of the database session.
Root causes that actually produce it
- COMMIT WORK inside a FETCH loop: by far the most frequent cause. A developer opens a cursor, loops with FETCH NEXT CURSOR, and inserts a COMMIT WORK inside the loop body to release locks or flush update task entries periodically. The commit closes the cursor at the database level; the next FETCH iteration dumps.
- CLOSE CURSOR followed by a stray FETCH: a cleanup routine or exception handler closes the cursor explicitly, but a subsequent code path (often in a different form or method reached via a GOTO, CHECK, or early exit that was not fully honoured) still tries to fetch from the now-closed handle.
- Cursor handle reused across LUW boundaries: the cursor number is stored in a global variable or object attribute and referenced again after an RFC call, an update task, or a background step boundary has already ended the original logical unit of work and its database session.
- Database session dropped externally: a database restart, connection pool recycle, network interruption, or DBA-initiated session kill closes the session mid-fetch. This shows up as the same dump but the cause is outside the ABAP program entirely.
- Database-enforced cursor timeout: very long-running FETCH loops that exceed a database-side idle or open-cursor limit get their cursor closed by the database itself before the ABAP program is done reading it.
- Parallel processing collision: multiple work processes or parallel RFC calls sharing a poorly scoped cursor variable, so one process closes or advances a cursor that another still expects to read from.
- Mixing native SQL and Open SQL on the same connection in custom code, where a native COMMIT or ROLLBACK issued through EXEC SQL invalidates cursors opened via Open SQL without the ABAP runtime being aware of it.
What to inspect in ST22
- Short text and error class in the dump header: confirms this is DBIF_RSQL_INVALID_CURSOR rather than a sibling like DBIF_RSQL_SQL_ERROR, and states which database interface function detected the mismatch.
- ABAP program, include, and line number in the 'Where terminated' section: this is the exact FETCH or implicit SELECT loop statement that failed. Open it in SE38 or SE80 immediately.
- Source code extract in the dump: check the lines above the failing statement for an OPEN CURSOR, and scan backward through the loop body for any COMMIT WORK, CLOSE CURSOR, or nested SELECT that shares the same connection.
- Call stack: shows whether the FETCH sits inside a function module, method, or a loop that spans an RFC call, which points at cross-LUW cursor reuse rather than a simple in-loop commit.
- System information block: note the database system and the work process type (dialog, background, update); this distinguishes a batch job hitting a database-side cursor timeout from a dialog step hitting a coding defect.
- Follow up with ST05 to trace whether a commit or session change actually occurred at the database layer at the relevant timestamp, and with SM21 or the database's own connection log if an external session drop is suspected.
Resolution path
If the trace shows COMMIT WORK between OPEN CURSOR and the failing FETCH, the fix is a code change: move the commit outside the fetch loop, or restructure the logic to buffer fetched rows into an internal table, close the cursor, commit, then reopen a new cursor keyed on the last processed value if the loop must continue. This requires a transport through normal development change control, it is not a configuration fix. If the cause is a stray FETCH after an explicit CLOSE CURSOR, correct the control flow so the loop cannot re-enter after the close, again a code change. If the cause is cursor reuse across an RFC or update-task boundary, redesign the interface so the receiving side opens its own cursor rather than inheriting a handle, which usually means changing the function module signature. If the trace instead shows no application-level commit or close and the timestamp lines up with a database restart or dropped connection reported in the database log, this is a Basis and infrastructure issue: check network stability between application and database tier, and review database session timeout settings with the DBA. No cursor-handling code change fixes a genuinely external session drop.
The fix people try first (and why it fails)
The reflex fix is wrapping the FETCH statement in a TRY/CATCH for CX_SY_OPEN_SQL_DB or a similar exception class and looping past it, or adding a SY-SUBRC check that just exits the loop quietly on error. This suppresses the short dump but does nothing about the COMMIT WORK still sitting inside the loop. The program now silently stops processing partway through the result set on every occurrence, so downstream records are missed with no error surfaced, which is worse than the dump because it produces incomplete data that nobody notices until a reconciliation fails weeks later.
Prevention
Treat any COMMIT WORK found between an OPEN CURSOR and its CLOSE CURSOR as a defect during code review, not a style preference; static checks in the ABAP Test Cockpit or SLIN can be configured to flag commits inside active SELECT loops. For batch programs that must commit periodically, use package-based fetch with FETCH NEXT CURSOR ... PACKAGE SIZE, process the package fully, commit, then continue fetching from the same still-open cursor rather than reopening it, since package fetch does not require an intervening commit at all if buffer sizes are set sensibly. Log the last processed key so a genuinely dropped session can resume without reprocessing.
Whose problem this is
This is an ABAP development defect in the large majority of cases, since the fault sits in cursor and commit sequencing inside custom code. Basis involvement is limited to confirming or ruling out a database-side session drop or connection instability. The handover note should state the program, include, and line from ST22, whether a COMMIT WORK or CLOSE CURSOR appears inside the same loop, and whether the database connection log shows any session termination at the failure timestamp.
Related SAP objects
Reviewed pages this object connects to in the ERPClimb knowledge graph.
Source: ERPClimb — https://erpclimb.com/sap-abap-dumps/dbif-rsql-invalid-cursorERPClimb is an independent platform and is not affiliated with SAP SE. Reference pages are written and reviewed by SAP consultants for learning and troubleshooting.