Comments
Sort by recent activity
Thanks for the response / comments
Thanks for the response
Looks like if I remove IncludeDependencies option, the issue goes away. That's fine because we probably want to be explicit about deploying those anyway. I assume that makes this not a bug, because if I say include dependencies that's going to include the underlying PS and PF.
Thanks for looking into it. / comments
Looks like if I remove IncludeDependencies option, the issue goes away. That's fine because we probably want to be explicit about deploying those anyway. I assume that makes this not a bug, becau...
Thanks for the response! Look forward to hearing from you. / comments
Thanks for the response! Look forward to hearing from you.
And I can also confirm that if I do nothing else except add the IgnoreFileGroups option, the problem goes away.
However, because of the issue described here http://www.red-gate.com/messageboard/vi ... hp?t=14710
I can't use that option. (And these are Partition Schemes and Partition Functions, not Filegroups anyway [image] ) / comments
And I can also confirm that if I do nothing else except add the IgnoreFileGroups option, the problem goes away.
However, because of the issue described herehttp://www.red-gate.com/messageboard/vi ....
Also, if I change something else like a stored proc, the Interactive HTML Report accurately reflects that as the only change. And it is also included as a change in the Output SQL. However the output SQL still includes the partition scheme synchronization that should be excluded by the filter. / comments
Also, if I change something else like a stored proc, the Interactive HTML Report accurately reflects that as the only change. And it is also included as a change in the Output SQL. However the ou...
I also just confirmed I have the same behavior with filtering out Partition Function in another database I'm working on. / comments
I also just confirmed I have the same behavior with filtering out Partition Function in another database I'm working on.
And, just let me say, how awesome* you guys are.
/IgnoreDataCompression
totally works and solves my issue.
*Because this means of course that you are guilty only of fully implementing a feature and simply not documenting it. You guys would fit in great at our place. [image] / comments
And, just let me say, how awesome* you guys are.
/IgnoreDataCompression
totally works and solves my issue.
*Because this means of course that you are guilty only of fully implementing a feature and...
Done.
Voted up and commented on this item http://redgate.uservoice.com/forums/390 ... bject-inst / comments
Done.
Voted up and commented on this itemhttp://redgate.uservoice.com/forums/390 ... bject-inst
so here's my latest (last?) attempt:
(1) Make hot fix in production
(2) Commit through SSC, push change to prod mercurial repository
(3) Terminal Service into shared DEV SQL Server
(4) pull prod repository into dev and merge changes
(5) Go into SSMS where SSC is setup as a dedicated link to mercurial
(6) Do a get latest and
(a) hopefully just push the new hotfix into dev because nobody has changed the objects in the hotfix in DEV since the last release
(b) manually merge the changes in if someone has modified the objects in the hotfix since the last release
(7) commit from SSC, push to hg dev
This is still awfully manual, especially if step 6 (b) is necessary, but it does establish a process and it does work.
What would be GREAT is if SSC included some basic merge functionality!
What's the chance of that anytime soon? [image] / comments
so here's my latest (last?) attempt:
(1) Make hot fix in production
(2) Commit through SSC, push change to prod mercurial repository
(3) Terminal Service into shared DEV SQL Server
(4) pull prod re...
The problem with 2) is that we may already be working in DEV on future changes to the objects we are deploying to PROD. So auto deploying sp_ReadCustomers from Wednesday's deployment to PROD may mean I overwrite Tuesday's changes to sp_ReadCustomers in the shared DB environment. / comments
The problem with 2) is that we may already be working in DEV on future changes to the objects we are deploying to PROD. So auto deploying sp_ReadCustomers from Wednesday's deployment to PROD may me...