Comments
Sort by recent activity
Hi there,
I have split this off from the original topic as whilst similar it is a different issue as it relates to an issue inside the index's included columns clause rather than the ordering of columns in table.
As the ordering in include clauses as no effect on the index then agree that your suggestion seems a sensible one. I will raise it to the developers to be fixed in a future build.
As a side note, if the only difference in the table is the order of columns in an index's include clause this table will still be treated as identical by the SQL Compare semantic comparison.
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
Hi there,
I have split this off from the original topic as whilst similar it is a different issue as it relates to an issue inside the index's included columns clause rather than the ordering of co...
Mike,
Sorry, about the problem that you are having, the point you make is a very valid one. At the moment this is not possible in SQL Compare 6. I will raise an issue for this, hopefully it will get into SQL Compare 6.3, however I cannot make any promises at the moment.
You could loop through all the scripts and use SQLCMD to execute each of the scripts with SET PARSEONLY ON so that the syntax is checked before you get SQL Compare to create a script. I know that this by no means perfect, but it is the best thing I can think of off the top of my head.
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
Mike,
Sorry, about the problem that you are having, the point you make is a very valid one. At the moment this is not possible in SQL Compare 6. I will raise an issue for this, hopefully it will ...
Hi Stan,
The first thing that I can think of is that there is some syntax in the stored procedure that SQL Compare doesn't like, but is okay with SQL Server. Syntax from SQL Server 6.5 and early could cause this behaviour. Does this procedure do anything out of the ordinary? Is it possible that you can post it?
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
Hi Stan,
The first thing that I can think of is that there is some syntax in the stored procedure that SQL Compare doesn't like, but is okay with SQL Server. Syntax from SQL Server 6.5 and early c...
Hi there,
SQL Compare should not have any problems with named instances. Two of our three test servers are named instances and we have not had any problems with them.
Are you just using machineName\instanceName or are you entering a connection string in the Server combo box?
I take it you have not had any problems using Query Analyser or Management Studio?
Can you post the error message?
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
Hi there,
SQL Compare should not have any problems with named instances. Two of our three test servers are named instances and we have not had any problems with them.
Are you just using machineNam...
Jalbert,
Okay, I have reproduced it, it is stripping the schema in the computed column definition. It looks like a bug, which I have raised to my developer. The earliest we can get a fix for this will probably be 6.3, as 6.2 has been locked off now.
At the moment the only thing that you can do is to manually search replace the synchronisation script prior to execution.
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
Jalbert,
Okay, I have reproduced it, it is stripping the schema in the computed column definition. It looks like a bug, which I have raised to my developer. The earliest we can get a fix for this...
Hi there,
As far as I can tell, it is not possible to create use CLR UDT in a computed column without including its schema name in the table definition. Therefore, you must add the schema name of the CLR UDT to your table definition.
Unfortunately, we cannot raise a warning if you leave out the schema as datatypes don't require this qualification.
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
Hi there,
As far as I can tell, it is not possible to create use CLR UDT in a computed column without including its schema name in the table definition. Therefore, you must add the schema name of ...
Unfortunately we were unable to resolve this in time for 6.2 which only contained limited bug fixes. It is in our bug tracking system currently slated for a 6.3 release. I have add a note to the report to update you regarding the status of this issue.
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
Unfortunately we were unable to resolve this in time for 6.2 which only contained limited bug fixes. It is in our bug tracking system currently slated for a 6.3 release. I have add a note to the r...
Hi there,
It looks like that you have found a bug in the script comparison. I think the only workaround will be to search replace the string in the synchronisation script, sorry I know this isn't a perfect solution. I will double check with the developers and get back to you shortly about this.
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
Hi there,
It looks like that you have found a bug in the script comparison. I think the only workaround will be to search replace the string in the synchronisation script, sorry I know this isn't ...
Hi there,
I have just had a chat with the developer, and we believe that this error message is being raised incorrectly.
To check this can you run the application from the command line and add the –keep option please?
This will then not delete the installer files on error. If you then go to “%TEMP%Red Gate†directory and locate the most recently created sub directory you should find some log files which will be called something like:-
Log 1.txt, Log 2.txt etc
That should have some additional details as to what’s gone wrong. If you can forward these to me we can then move on from there.
Thanks,
Jonathan / comments
Hi there,
I have just had a chat with the developer, and we believe that this error message is being raised incorrectly.
To check this can you run the application from the command line and add the ...
Cheers Brian,
I will have a word with the installer developers and see what we can do about getting proper links.
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
Cheers Brian,
I will have a word with the installer developers and see what we can do about getting proper links.
Regards,
Jonathan