Comments
Sort by recent activity
Thanks for your reply.
Since I last posted to this thread, I've seen a similar issue with SQL Compare, which is the engine SQL Dependency tracker uses to read the schema.
It seems to happen if you have an unexpected null value for some extended properties. The older SQL Compare engine didn't seem to be so fussy.
Can you run the following query and see if anything is returned: SELECT major_id, minor_id, t.name AS [Table Name], c.name AS [Column Name], value AS [Extended Property]
FROM sys.extended_properties AS ep
INNER JOIN sys.tables AS t ON ep.major_id = t.object_id
INNER JOIN sys.columns AS c ON ep.major_id = c.object_id AND ep.minor_id = c.column_id
WHERE value IS null;
GO
/ comments
Thanks for your reply.
Since I last posted to this thread, I've seen a similar issue with SQL Compare, which is the engine SQL Dependency tracker uses to read the schema.
It seems to happen if you ...
Thanks for your post.
The only license information you can find through the tool is through 'Help | About'. This will tell you your serial number.
You can find out more information about your purchases if you log into http://www.red-gate.com/myserialnumbers
I hope this helps. / comments
Thanks for your post.
The only license information you can find through the tool is through 'Help | About'. This will tell you your serial number.
You can find out more information about your purch...
I've create the bug report now, so thanks for the poke.
1) The identity Insert problem.
I've confirmed this. If you use the 'ignore identity property' option and SQL Compare needs to rebuild the table. It forgets to set the identity insert when it inserts the data into the temp table. This is now logged under the bug tracking code SC-5647.
2) Constraint Names
It looks like the new constraint names are consistent with the names on the source schema, so I think this is the correct behaviour. The names are only ignored for the comparison, so a sync will always use the names from the source database.
3) Recreation of PK.
I couldn't reproduce this. The PK is actually recreated after the temp table is renamed to the correct table name, so it might just be happening further down the script to where you expect it, but it should be there.
Does this explain the behaviour, or have I missed anything? / comments
I've create the bug report now, so thanks for the poke.
1) The identity Insert problem.
I've confirmed this. If you use the 'ignore identity property' option and SQL Compare needs to rebuild the ta...
Thanks for your reply, and sorry for the delay.
I see what you mean, so I was just putting a test case together for the development team.
I'll update you with a bug reference number.
Sorry to not keep you updated. / comments
Thanks for your reply, and sorry for the delay.
I see what you mean, so I was just putting a test case together for the development team.
I'll update you with a bug reference number.
Sorry to not k...
Thanks for your post.
You're absolutely right about what it *should* be doing, but I'm not sure why it isn't in your case. I've tested it here with the same table structure, and it seems to add the identity insert statements correctly.
There must be something in the table that's causing the identity property to be missed.
Can you run the following query in SSMS and make sure that 128 is returned for status?
SELECT name, status FROM syscolumns WHERE name = 'ID_Link_Dossierbeheerder_Departement'
Can you let me know what is being changed when you sync sec_dossierbeheerder_departement? / comments
Thanks for your post.
You're absolutely right about what it *should* be doing, but I'm not sure why it isn't in your case. I've tested it here with the same table structure, and it seems to add the...
Thanks for your post.
In theory there shouldn't be any difference as they're using the same engine.
Can you make sure you're using the exact same options in both the UI and the CL?
Just to make sure, the environment variable you need to set is RGTemp (I'm assuming RBTemp was a typo in your post)
SQL Data Compare really shouldn't be throwing OOM exceptions anyway, so could you check the SQLDataCompare process in task manager and see what it gets to before the OOM is thrown? / comments
Thanks for your post.
In theory there shouldn't be any difference as they're using the same engine.
Can you make sure you're using the exact same options in both the UI and the CL?
Just to make sur...
I've had a go at reproducing this, but in my test it seems to filter out the partition function from the sql script.
Can you post the command you're using? / comments
I've had a go at reproducing this, but in my test it seems to filter out the partition function from the sql script.
Can you post the command you're using?
Thanks for your post.
We've had a couple of reports of slightly similar issues with partition function / schemes, so I think there is an issue with v10.
I'll try and reproduce the problem and let you know what's going to be done.
If I can't reproduce it I'll probably come back to you for some more information.
Thanks for reporting this to us. / comments
Thanks for your post.
We've had a couple of reports of slightly similar issues with partition function / schemes, so I think there is an issue with v10.
I'll try and reproduce the problem and let y...
1 - Systematically ignore some columns that are pervasive in our design, without having to go through a click festival.
As you have found, there isn't an easy way to do this with the UI. We have just set up a uservoice site for SQL Data Compare, where users can view and vote for SQL Data Compare features. Would you be able to suggest this idea on there? https://redgate.uservoice.com/forums/14 ... uggestions
We have an example of how to do this with the API, but I don't know how helpful that will be: http://sdk.red-gate.com/index.php/Exclu ... ified_name
2 - When ignoring a mandatory column, my inserts are failing. Is there a way to ignore a column in the comparison step but still insert it in the script step?
This request has been around for a while, and I'm pleased to say it is currently scheduled for the next version. Our internal reference for this is SDC-137 / comments
1 - Systematically ignore some columns that are pervasive in our design, without having to go through a click festival.
As you have found, there isn't an easy way to do this with the UI. We ha...
Yes, no problem. I've added you as another vote. / comments
Yes, no problem. I've added you as another vote.