session_start()

OK, just to get this out of the way first... I am >NOT< outputting
anything BEFORE my call to session_start(). The error I am getting is
NOT related to the session header having already been sent.

I am running on LAMP, and my code works in ALL cases but one... if I
pass it a value of category_id=259, then the call to session_start()
bombs and I get an empty page. This doesn't happen for ANY other
category_id. I am at a complete loss here. Has anyone else seen
similar behavior?

re: session_start()

cliff wrote:[color=blue]
> I am running on LAMP, and my code works in ALL cases but one... if I
> pass it a value of category_id=259, then the call to session_start()
> bombs and I get an empty page. This doesn't happen for ANY other
> category_id. I am at a complete loss here. Has anyone else seen
> similar behavior?[/color]

Check your error logs or enable the display_errors directive in php.ini file
to get more information. Also, make sure that the error_reporting level is
set to E_ALL.


JW

re: session_start()

Thanks for the quick response, JW. error_reporting was set to E_ALL &
~E_NOTICE, but the other settings were correct.

That said, while I was trying what you described I managed to discover
that it was running out of memory because it was a particularly LARGE
category. Odd that it wasn't giving me the usual "ran out of memory"
error, but when I expanded the memory from the default 8M to 16M (MAN,
I don't like a page needing that much memory to render) the error went
away.

re: session_start()

cliff wrote:[color=blue]
> OK, just to get this out of the way first... I am >NOT< outputting
> anything BEFORE my call to session_start(). The error I am getting is
> NOT related to the session header having already been sent.
>
> I am running on LAMP, and my code works in ALL cases but one... if I
> pass it a value of category_id=259, then the call to session_start()
> bombs and I get an empty page. This doesn't happen for ANY other
> category_id. I am at a complete loss here. Has anyone else seen
> similar behavior?[/color]

It used to happen to me with the number 153.
So, the first thing I do to *every* database I ever build is invalidate
the number 153 there.

--
Mail to my "From:" address is readable by all at http://www.dodgeit.com/
== ** ## !! ------------------------------------------------ !! ## ** ==
TEXT-ONLY mail to the whole "Reply-To:" address ("My Name" <my@address>)
may bypass my spam filter. If it does, I may reply from another address!