Comments
Sort by recent activity
Can you give us some rules about when fields will match both in the UI and in the sync?
This isn't a huge issue as I don't rename fields too often, but I'd like to know that this has been acknowledged as a bug and will be fixed in a future release. My vote is to either add a complete field matching feature or to eliminate the matching completely.
Thanks,
Ben / comments
Can you give us some rules about when fields will match both in the UI and in the sync?
This isn't a huge issue as I don't rename fields too often, but I'd like to know that this has been acknowled...
Hi Brian,
So SQL Compare sometimes matches columns, but the matching shown in the UI is not necessarily the same as the matching in the synchronization. That seems like a big bug to me.
Ben / comments
Hi Brian,
So SQL Compare sometimes matches columns, but the matching shown in the UI is not necessarily the same as the matching in the synchronization. That seems like a big bug to me.
Ben
I have another quick question. If I change just the data type of a field (say VarChar to NVarChar) will SQL Compare make the type adjustment and keep the data?
The UI indicates that the fields match, but I'm a little nervous that I'm going to lose my data.
Thanks,
Ben / comments
I have another quick question. If I change just the data type of a field (say VarChar to NVarChar) will SQL Compare make the type adjustment and keep the data?
The UI indicates that the fields mat...
Didn't there used to be a mapping piece to SQL Compare where you could map fields? Maybe a few versions ago?
Ben / comments
Didn't there used to be a mapping piece to SQL Compare where you could map fields? Maybe a few versions ago?
Ben
I just sent that screenshot.
It's an interesting deficiency in SQL Compare. I was just reading about data migrations in Ruby on Rails. You can create little scripts that rename fields and tables. I think overall SQL Compare is a lot easier to use, but the ability to map fields would be a great additional feature.
I looked at SQL Refactor. It looks like it would be awkward to rename fields on a development machine and make those same changes to my staging or production server. I have a very smooth process for using SQL Compare to push schema changes from my development machine to my production server. I'm not sure that SQL Refactor fits in to that process. / comments
I just sent that screenshot.
It's an interesting deficiency in SQL Compare. I was just reading about data migrations in Ruby on Rails. You can create little scripts that rename fields and tables....
I just ran a test and the UI clearly shows the renamed field on the same line with an arrow between them. I have a screenshot, but I don't see a way of uploading it. Is there an email address I can send it to.
I realize that SQL Compare would have to guess, but I had presumed it had made an assumption based on the field position and data type.
Thanks,
Ben / comments
I just ran a test and the UI clearly shows the renamed field on the same line with an arrow between them. I have a screenshot, but I don't see a way of uploading it. Is there an email address I c...
OK, I found that localhost doesn't work now that I've upgraded to SQL Server 2005 for some reason. I can either use my actual machine (which I don't want to use, because I want this script to be portable across machines) or I can use (local). Can anyone explain this?
Thanks,
Ben / comments
OK, I found that localhost doesn't work now that I've upgraded to SQL Server 2005 for some reason. I can either use my actual machine (which I don't want to use, because I want this script to be p...
I figured out the problem. I'm using the Developer edition of SQL Server 2005 and by default, the TCP/IP protocol is switched off. Turn it on and restart the service and localhost will work again. / comments
I figured out the problem. I'm using the Developer edition of SQL Server 2005 and by default, the TCP/IP protocol is switched off. Turn it on and restart the service and localhost will work again.
Thanks Jeff. That's a great idea. / comments
Thanks Jeff. That's a great idea.
I spoke to the engineer at my web hosting company (aspwebhosting.com). They made it very clear that giving any user access to the syslogins table is a very bad thing that allows someone to see all the usernames. A hacker then only needs to guess the passwords for each login (he described it as giving someone half the combination to the safe). That really makes a lot of sense to me and I understand why they are not willing to give me that permission.
I really think that there should be an option that eliminates the calls to the syslogins table if I'm not trying to sync the logins. All I want to do is sync the tables and stored procedures.
Thanks,
Ben / comments
I spoke to the engineer at my web hosting company (aspwebhosting.com). They made it very clear that giving any user access to the syslogins table is a very bad thing that allows someone to see all...