Comments
Sort by recent activity
The only difference I can see between v5.3 and v6 on XP in Run As behaviour is that the "Run As..." right click context menu option does not get displayed by default on v6. You have to hold shift down and right click, rather than just right clicking.
Is the problem that you cannot see the Run As menu option for v6 or that it isn't authenticating correctly?
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
The only difference I can see between v5.3 and v6 on XP in Run As behaviour is that the "Run As..." right click context menu option does not get displayed by default on v6. You have to hold shift ...
Hi there,
Sorry about the problems you are experiencing.
Which OS are you using?
I have had a quick look into this on Vista and XP, whilst XP appears to be fine and authenticating correctly, Vista does appear to be ignoring the Run As command. So it looks like there is an issue there somewhere.
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
Hi there,
Sorry about the problems you are experiencing.
Which OS are you using?
I have had a quick look into this on Vista and XP, whilst XP appears to be fine and authenticating correctly, Vista ...
Hi there,
It sound like you had the ignore constraints option enabled. You can find you option for the project on the Project Configuration > Options tab.
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
Hi there,
It sound like you had the ignore constraints option enabled. You can find you option for the project on the Project Configuration > Options tab.
Regards,
Jonathan
David,
You vote has been noted. As I have said this isn't the most popular feature request we get, it is about two thirds of the away up the list of requests at the moment, but it will be investigated prior to the next release.
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
David,
You vote has been noted. As I have said this isn't the most popular feature request we get, it is about two thirds of the away up the list of requests at the moment, but it will be investig...
Boris,
Thanks for your feedback.
I can understand your point of view that it is frustrating when you only want to view certain objects that you have to process everything else.
However, without parsing all the objects in the database it is not possible to get a true idea of what dependencies are involved in the database and without this information we cannot generate clean synchronization scripts. So if we add this option I can foresee that you may have to take a hit a different area.
However, the main problem is that I cannot see a change of this scale being sanctioned at the moment, as to implement a pre-compare filter would mean a massive change in the engine. Which we would want to avoid doing in a point release.
However, I have raised this in our bug tracking system, and it will be one of the areas that we will research into when we consider the next major raft of features to be implemented.
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
Boris,
Thanks for your feedback.
I can understand your point of view that it is frustrating when you only want to view certain objects that you have to process everything else.
However, without par...
Hi Boris,
Thanks for your vote on this and understand your point of view. It is a very popular request and as I say it is something we are considering for future releases of SQL Compare.
Thanks,
Jonathan / comments
Hi Boris,
Thanks for your vote on this and understand your point of view. It is a very popular request and as I say it is something we are considering for future releases of SQL Compare.
Thanks,
J...
Lee,
I think your problem stems from the fact that the SQL Compare carries out two comparisons of objects. The status of objects like a table's triggers is determined by a semantic comparison of the objects and the result of which is displayed in the main grid, this will take things like the order of triggers into account. This means that any script generated will be correct, and will only change what is necessary to be changed rather than dropping and recreating all your triggers.
However, the SQL Differences panel carries out a straight textual comparison of objects. This is done primarily for speed and secondary because 90% of semantic differences are also textual differences.
The drawback of this approach is that whilst it works fine for functions, and stored procedures, if SQL Server returns objects like a table's triggers in a different order in each database then the SQL Differences Panel will display false positives.
We are considering improving the current behaviour in SQL Compare, either by allowing triggers to be compared as separate objects or adding semantic comparison to the SQL Differences Panel
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
Lee,
I think your problem stems from the fact that the SQL Compare carries out two comparisons of objects. The status of objects like a table's triggers is determined by a semantic comparison of t...
Sorry but is not currently possible to save the window size. I will raise a request to get this persisted in future versions.
You can view long server/database names by mousing over the entry and a tooltip will display the entire name.
Regards,
Jonathan / comments
Sorry but is not currently possible to save the window size. I will raise a request to get this persisted in future versions.
You can view long server/database names by mousing over the entry and ...
Hi Lee,
The SQL 2005 permission VIEW DEFINITION is probably what you are after to quote:
The VIEW DEFINITION permission lets a user see the metadata of the securable on which the permission is granted. However, VIEW DEFINITION permission does not confer access to the securable itself. For example, a user that is granted only VIEW DEFINITION permission on a table can see metadata related to the table in the sys.objects catalog view. However, without additional permissions such as SELECT or CONTROL, the user cannot read data from the table. For more information about viewing metadata, see Metadata Visibility Configuration.
The VIEW DEFINITION permission can be granted on the following levels:
Server scope
it's called VIEW ANY DATABASE - Jonathan
Database scope
Schema scope
Individual entities
I have tested this as the DB level and it works, the server level might be a bit far reaching.
Hope this helps,
Jonathan / comments
Hi Lee,
The SQL 2005 permission VIEW DEFINITION is probably what you are after to quote:
The VIEW DEFINITION permission lets a user see the metadata of the securable on which the permission is gra...
Hi Jason,
Sorry about the problems you are encountering, would it be possible to discribe in what way are the scripts are invalid?
Thanks,
Jonathan / comments
Hi Jason,
Sorry about the problems you are encountering, would it be possible to discribe in what way are the scripts are invalid?
Thanks,
Jonathan