Comments
Sort by recent activity
rdobrich wrote:
I have following problem then try to exclude some object:
I Try to compare two databases (working and empty database).
I have all object including in synchronizing.
The script failed (let say because of ordering or something else)
Now I try to exclude that failed object from the list.
I try to sync again.
I have the same error. Script include that excluding object.
After experiment with this I realize why.
In comparation option I have check 'include dependencies'
This is little confuse. I know that option include all dependencies for object. But when I wont some object not to include that option, Script force to create that.
I think that excluding some object from the list have to exclude that object from creating (from object dependencies of parent object)
You are right that we do not support explicit object exclusion. If you have an object that depends on another one, then without the "include dependencies" option this object cannot be synchronized (the script would raise a dependency error or the resulting database will be most likely inconsistent). In the future we will show more information that could help in such cases.
Regards,
Andras / comments
rdobrich wrote:
I have following problem then try to exclude some object:
I Try to compare two databases (working and empty database).
I have all object including in synchronizing.
The script fa...
Alex Fekken wrote:
A problem that I reported on 8 July that would not let me migrate a change in the definition of a user-defined type (domain) has been fixed. Good work!
Thanks,
Alex Fekken
Many thanks for this feedback. It is nice to hear such things [image]
Andras / comments
Alex Fekken wrote:
A problem that I reported on 8 July that would not let me migrate a change in the definition of a user-defined type (domain) has been fixed. Good work!
Thanks,
Alex Fekken
M...
rdobrich wrote:
I also have problem with users if script failed later (say in creating views ).
The problem is:
SQL Compare rolled back all script, BUT User (or role) are not rollback.
They stey created in database.
When I exclude some object, I can't sinchronize database, becuse, script thinks that they doesn't exists.
If I have users or roles in script, I have Refresh comparation before sinhronize them again
Unfortunately user creation, together with role create/drops, role membership changes, ... are not transactional, and thus we have to handle them outside a transaction. One would think that SQL Server 2005 fixed this issue with the new CREATE ROLE, etc, but they have not (sp_addrolemember) is still nontransactional and thus the above behaviour will remain in SQL Server 2005 too. (I've been promised that it will be fixed in SP1, but that is still away).
Andras / comments
rdobrich wrote:
I also have problem with users if script failed later (say in creating views ).
The problem is:
SQL Compare rolled back all script, BUT User (or role) are not rollback.
They stey...
mikea wrote:
But it looks like you already generate the code. I used what you generated (The sp_grantlogin), then wrote a script that filled in the user name, then it seemed to work for SQL 2000.
I'll contact you in a private message about this.
Andras / comments
mikea wrote:
But it looks like you already generate the code. I used what you generated (The sp_grantlogin), then wrote a script that filled in the user name, then it seemed to work for SQL 200...
mikea wrote:
Re: Topic: http://www.red-gate.com/MessageBoard/viewtopic.php?t=1390
OK. This still does generate the logins, but now I at least see the warning below about it. I guess I will just have to enter them by hand, but I was hoping that I didn't have to because there a about a hundred of them that I need to set up on my test SQL Server.
The user User1 does not have an associated login. The target database is in an inconsitent state. Please fix this by using sp_change_users_login.
The user User2 does not have an associated login. The target database is in an inconsitent state. Please fix this by using sp_change_users_login.
Hi Mike,
Logins are more server level than database level. There are many problems with migrating logins automatically (especially if they are Windows login based, or certificate/asymmetric key based in the case of SQL Server 2005). It would not be a good idea if SQL Compare started to create NT users (in which case deciding on the default domain would also cause a problem). Since it is very difficult to change a user later (if one wants to change a SQL user to a certificate based user, he would need to unbind all the relevant dependent objects), and since logins affect the whole database server, we advise their manual migration.
The above warning indicates that you probably have restored a foreign backup onto a new server. The master db is a bit messed up in such cases, but this one can correct either manually or by writing a short proc that iterates through the database users, checks whether their sid is included in the master syslogins table, and runs the sp_change_users_login.
Regards,
Andras / comments
mikea wrote:
Re: Topic: http://www.red-gate.com/MessageBoard/viewtopic.php?t=1390
OK. This still does generate the logins, but now I at least see the warning below about it. I guess I will ju...
Luis Martin wrote:
I was using for almost a year Bundle 3.0 without problem.
After install Bundle 4.0, few comments:
1) Instalation time: no problem at all. Bundle 3.0 was removed without problem.
2) Packager: No problem, using 3.0 projects.
3) Packager: May be a little slow, comparing with 3.0. (just may be).
Many thanks for your comment. Could you give me some information about the database you have with which you experienced the slowdown. Is it a 2000/2005 database, if 2005, does it have a lot of new object types. Do you have lot of extended properties, tables that use different collations, etc.
SQL Compare now reads a lot of extra properties that were ignored previously, and it also considers extra dependencies that were not handled.
Regards,
Andras / comments
Luis Martin wrote:
I was using for almost a year Bundle 3.0 without problem.
After install Bundle 4.0, few comments:
1) Instalation time: no problem at all. Bundle 3.0 was removed without proble...
rdobrich wrote:
I just found what was the problem.
I options I have option 'ignore permision' uncheck.
For that functions and stored procedures I have different permisions.
I have permisions into role on that objects.
When I try to sinchronize them nothing happens.
I have the following script (the scripts are the same for including role filter or excluding. )
I don't know how I can see difference in role security.
Hi,
could you send me just the permissions on this stored procedure pair. Also could you indicate which permission is assigned to a role or a user. My email is:
Andras.Belokosztolszki "AT" red-gate.com
Regards,
Andras / comments
rdobrich wrote:
I just found what was the problem.
I options I have option 'ignore permision' uncheck.
For that functions and stored procedures I have different permisions.
I have permisions int...
CrispinH wrote:
Neil, Mike
I had a go at disabling the Windows Firewall and it made no difference to the listing (ie the local SQL Express was absent and remote instances of SQL Server 2000 were present).
Crispin
Crispin,
is your SQL Server Browser service running? This is usually required for non default instances and is disabled by default on 2005.
Andras / comments
CrispinH wrote:
Neil, Mike
I had a go at disabling the Windows Firewall and it made no difference to the listing (ie the local SQL Express was absent and remote instances of SQL Server 2000 were...
Macromullet wrote:
I have a table with an int field that has a default value of 0.
When i compare this table to a table with the exact same schema against a table on SQL Server 2000 it says they are different, with the difference being that the default value on SQL Server 2000 is (0) but on SQL Server 2005 its ((0))
The only difference is that sql server 2005 seems to use double-parentheses. If i use management studio to alter the value, i can put in a default of 0, but when i save, management studio says the default is ((0)) again, vs. what enterprise manager used to say for sql server 2000 (0).
Is this a known issue? Its causing my comparisons to generate a lot of change scripts that as far as I can tell are bogus.
I know its a preview but I'm trying to plan ahead for my app.
Thanks!
-Brooke
Hi Brooke,
Unfortunately this is a design problem in Yukon, and we are aware of it. We will provide a solution for this in the next version of SQL Compare.
Regards,
Andras / comments
Macromullet wrote:
I have a table with an int field that has a default value of 0.
When i compare this table to a table with the exact same schema against a table on SQL Server 2000 it says they...
The problem is that
ALTER TABLE at_plPlatted_Lot CHECK CONSTRAINT all
does only enable the check constraint, and it will still be considered untrusted from the query optimizer's point of view. If you have a look at the status field of the sysobjects table for a foreign key, you will see that the above command will not reset the constraint to its previous status. The correct reset command should be
ALTER TABLE at_plPlatted_Lot WITH CHECK CHECK CONSTRAINT all
SQL Compare detects these differences thus correctly.
Regards,
Andras / comments
The problem is that
ALTER TABLE at_plPlatted_Lot CHECK CONSTRAINT all
does only enable the check constraint, and it will still be considered untrusted from the query optimizer's point of view. If y...