User profile for vincentj

The patch worked for me as well, thank you! / comments

The patch worked for me as well, thank you!

0 votes

Oh, one thing to note about this version. It seems to be leaving a folder behind inside the Data folder. If I run it twice, the second run fails with a bunch of errors like the following: Error: Ignored statement found in file d:\build\Database\trunk\Data\634429737738099016\dbo.tablename_Data.sql at line 1 If I delete that weird folder (634429737738099016) then it works fine. / comments

Oh, one thing to note about this version. It seems to be leaving a folder behind inside the Data folder. If I run it twice, the second run fails with a bunch of errors like the following: Error:...

0 votes

I'm getting this same error, but I can't use version 8 because that gives me an error about "Only x86 assemblies are currently supported." I have some tables that only exist on the second server, and I tried excluding them but I still get the error. Is there a workaround for this issue or do I have to wait until the next version is released? / comments

I'm getting this same error, but I can't use version 8 because that gives me an error about "Only x86 assemblies are currently supported." I have some tables that only exist on the second server, ...

0 votes

Great, thanks! / comments

Great, thanks!

0 votes

I think I figured it out... it seems that there was still a reference to the unlinked table in the RedGateDatabaseInfo.xml file. Once I removed that (and the /exclude:additional option) it worked as expected. So is this a problem with the way that SQL Source Control unlinks tables? Is there a way that I can file a bug report about that? / comments

I think I figured it out... it seems that there was still a reference to the unlinked table in the RedGateDatabaseInfo.xml file. Once I removed that (and the /exclude:additional option) it worked ...

0 votes

I'm running into a similar issue. I'm trying to automate my deployment using SQL Compare and SQL Data Compare. It looks like I need to modify my build script to run in the following order: 1. Run SQL Compare and add new tables only 2. Run SQL Data Compare to populate the new table 3. Run SQL Compare again to sync the rest of the schema This seems a bit cumbersome, but I guess the only way it'd be more streamlined would be if SQL Compare and SQL Data Compare were combined into a single application so it could determine such dependencies. Does Red Gate suggest any best practices for this scenario? / comments

I'm running into a similar issue. I'm trying to automate my deployment using SQL Compare and SQL Data Compare. It looks like I need to modify my build script to run in the following order: 1. Run...

0 votes

I finally rewrote my deployment scripts as I mentioned above. I ran into one other issue along the way, and I figured I'd document my efforts here in case anyone else finds it useful. When I chose to sync just tables (excluding foreign keys), I got this error: Msg 3723, Level 16, State 6, Server MACHINE, Line 1 An explicit DROP INDEX is not allowed on index 'dbo.table1.pk_table1'. It is being used for FOREIGN KEY constraint enforcement. It's trying to remove an index on a table, but that index can't be removed because it's referenced by a foreign key. But since I've told it to ignore foreign keys, the script doesn't include the necessary DROP CONSTRAINT. (As a side note, the release notes for SQL Compare 9 say this has been fixed, but I'm using 9.0.0.79 and I still saw this error.) I tried adding IncludeDependencies to the options, as well as Default (based on feedback from another thread, heh) and IgnoreIndexes (hoping to push the whole mess off until the tables were synced) but none of those worked. I managed to work around it by adding two more steps to my deployment script, here's what I eventually came up with: 1. Sync NEW tables only, excluding foreign key constraints. We need most of the default options except IncludeDependencies. SqlCompare.exe /options:DecryptPost2KEncryptedObjects,IgnoreFillFactor,IgnoreWhiteSpace,IgnoreFileGroups,IgnoreUserProperties,IgnoreWithElementOrder,IgnoreKeys /include:Table /exclude:additional /exclude:different /exclude:identical ... 2. Sync data for all tables. This will include the tables we just added so we will be able to enforce the foreign key constraints on those new tables. SqlDataCompare.exe ... (no special options here) 3. Sync ALL tables, this time we can include foreign keys because the new tables have already been added and populated. Again, we use the default options except IncludeDependencies. SqlCompare.exe /options:DecryptPost2KEncryptedObjects,IgnoreFillFactor,IgnoreWhiteSpace,IgnoreFileGroups,IgnoreUserProperties,IgnoreWithElementOrder /include:Table ... 4. Sync data for all tables again. This is unlikely to add anything new, unless we've added a new column to an existing static data table. SqlDataCompare.exe ... (no special options here) 5. Sync the rest of the database objects. SqlCompare.exe ... (no special options here) This could still fail if you need to add a new primary key field to an existing static data table, populate that field, and then enforce a foreign key constraint against the new field. But that is a very unlikely scenario, so I'm considering this good enough for our purposes. It still seems way more complicated than it needs to be, and I can't imagine I'm the first person to do this... do everyone's build scripts look like this, or am I just missing something? (Edit: updated the options for steps 1 and 3; it was dropping and recreating all the indexes with the defaults excluded.) / comments

I finally rewrote my deployment scripts as I mentioned above. I ran into one other issue along the way, and I figured I'd document my efforts here in case anyone else finds it useful. When I chose...

0 votes

I figured out the foreign key issue, it was because the table contained values that would violate the constraint because they were not in the list of primary keys in the other table. I deleted the offending data and that part of the script executed properly. I managed to work around the second issue by removing the transactions and running the script multiple times. I'm still curious if there's a better solution, because I don't think I'll be able to remove the transactions when deploying to live environments. / comments

I figured out the foreign key issue, it was because the table contained values that would violate the constraint because they were not in the list of primary keys in the other table. I deleted the...

0 votes

Much appreciated, thanks! / comments

Much appreciated, thanks!

0 votes

Yes, we're using linked servers. Is there a timeframe for that feature to get added? I need to decide whether it is worth waiting or if I should implement another solution. / comments

Yes, we're using linked servers. Is there a timeframe for that feature to get added? I need to decide whether it is worth waiting or if I should implement another solution.

0 votes

How can we help you today?

vincentj

Comments