|
|
You're in the
sql server replication
group:Synchronizing workstation and laptop
sql server replication:
I have a Windows 2003 SP1 machine (workstation) running with SQL Server 2000 and I also have a Windows XP Pro SP2 machine (laptop) running with MSDE2000a. Both machines has Client Tools installed. I do most of my development (programming) on my workstation but from time to time I need to bring along my laptop and get some work done (not an uncommon task). What I need to be able to do is synchronize my work between the two machines. The source code is no problem, I just run a source control application (check in/out), but I'm not sure how to solve synchronizing the databases between the two machines. Does anyone know of any smart (end preferbly easy to setup and administrate) ways of synchronizing changes to the database design and contents between the two? I was thinking of perhaps using replication, i.e each machine is a publisher and also subscribes to eachothers publications. Would this be a good solution? Are there any other options? Thanks, Andreas Håkansson
Andreas,
bidirectional transactional replication or merge would seem to be most suitable, with queued updating subscribers (QUS)transactional also a posibility. Out of the box merge or QUS are easier to set up. Cheers, Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com (recommended sql server 2000 replication book: http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
That would work just fine for the data and the tables.
However, for the stored procedures and UDFs you need to come up with something else (unless you're keeping that into your source control repository). BTW: using merge replication (don't know about transactional) you are not going to be able to modify the tables schema in the subscriber (laptop). José. [quoted text, click to view] "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message news:%233MDB7t5FHA.964@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > Andreas, > bidirectional transactional replication or merge would seem to be most > suitable, with queued updating subscribers (QUS)transactional also a > posibility. Out of the box merge or QUS are easier to set up. > Cheers, > Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com > (recommended sql server 2000 replication book: > http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html) > >
Merge replication can replication all objects including UDFs and procedures.
You can add and drop columns from existing merge replication topologies using sp_repladdcolumn or sp_repldropcolumn. [quoted text, click to view] "José Araujo" <josea@mcrinc.com> wrote in message news:%23k2iqRv5FHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > That would work just fine for the data and the tables. > > However, for the stored procedures and UDFs you need to come up with > something else (unless you're keeping that into your source control > repository). > > BTW: using merge replication (don't know about transactional) you are not > going to be able to modify the tables schema in the subscriber (laptop). > > José. > > "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message > news:%233MDB7t5FHA.964@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> Andreas, >> bidirectional transactional replication or merge would seem to be most >> suitable, with queued updating subscribers (QUS)transactional also a >> posibility. Out of the box merge or QUS are easier to set up. >> Cheers, >> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com >> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book: >> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html) >> >> > >
There is no incremental publish option. It probably would be best to drop
the publication and recreate it each time, or script it out and only add the new objects to the script. [quoted text, click to view] "Andreas Håkansson" <andreas@selfinflicted.org> wrote in message news:uIZv7u25FHA.4076@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > Hilary Cotter wrote: >> Merge replication can replication all objects including UDFs and >> procedures. You can add and drop columns from existing merge replication >> topologies using sp_repladdcolumn or sp_repldropcolumn. >> >> "José Araujo" <josea@mcrinc.com> wrote in message >> news:%23k2iqRv5FHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... >> >>>That would work just fine for the data and the tables. >>> >>>However, for the stored procedures and UDFs you need to come up with >>>something else (unless you're keeping that into your source control >>>repository). >>> >>>BTW: using merge replication (don't know about transactional) you are not >>>going to be able to modify the tables schema in the subscriber (laptop). >>> >>>José. >>> >>>"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message >>>news:%233MDB7t5FHA.964@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >>> >>>>Andreas, >>>>bidirectional transactional replication or merge would seem to be most >>>>suitable, with queued updating subscribers (QUS)transactional also a >>>>posibility. Out of the box merge or QUS are easier to set up. >>>>Cheers, >>>> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com >>>> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book: >>>> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html) >>>> >>>> > > Thank you to all who have replied. This is a first to me so I'am taking > baby steps forward :) One thing I need to understand - If I setup a merge > replication does it define exactly what to merge (which tables, udfs, > procedures etc.) and I can't just say "what ever's new/changed in the > entire database should be included" ? > > Since it's in the development phase I will add and tweak existing tables, > procedures etc. So having keep track of all the changes myself and add > them to the merge replication "set" would be a tedious task and actually > not remove much of the manual work I'd have to do without the replication > ? > > Thanks, > > > Andreas Håkansson
[quoted text, click to view]
Hilary Cotter wrote: > Merge replication can replication all objects including UDFs and procedures. > You can add and drop columns from existing merge replication topologies > using sp_repladdcolumn or sp_repldropcolumn. > > "José Araujo" <josea@mcrinc.com> wrote in message > news:%23k2iqRv5FHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > >>That would work just fine for the data and the tables. >> >>However, for the stored procedures and UDFs you need to come up with >>something else (unless you're keeping that into your source control >>repository). >> >>BTW: using merge replication (don't know about transactional) you are not >>going to be able to modify the tables schema in the subscriber (laptop). >> >>José. >> >>"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message >>news:%233MDB7t5FHA.964@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... >> >>>Andreas, >>>bidirectional transactional replication or merge would seem to be most >>>suitable, with queued updating subscribers (QUS)transactional also a >>>posibility. Out of the box merge or QUS are easier to set up. >>>Cheers, >>> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com >>> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book: >>> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html) >>> >>> Thank you to all who have replied. This is a first to me so I'am taking baby steps forward :) One thing I need to understand - If I setup a merge replication does it define exactly what to merge (which tables, udfs, procedures etc.) and I can't just say "what ever's new/changed in the entire database should be included" ? Since it's in the development phase I will add and tweak existing tables, procedures etc. So having keep track of all the changes myself and add them to the merge replication "set" would be a tedious task and actually not remove much of the manual work I'd have to do without the replication ? Thanks,
Even though merge replication can replicate all dbobjects I think your
sysdepends table must be correct. In other words, if you constatly recreate UDFs, StoredProcs, views (and he probably does, since he is a developer) the sysdepends table information gets "corrupted" - ie: it doesn't really have the dependencies (unless you are REALLY careful of using alters all the time, and even doing that, there are moments when you need to drop). My experience is that the script that is included in the replication uses that information to sort the different objects inside. Since that information is wrong the script doesn't run in the subscriber (only for StoredProc because you can create them in any order). Hilary: I think we have discussed this before in other posts you have had the courtesy to reply to me. I thought we agreed the sysdepends information MUST be correct for that work. Did I get it wrong? (I actually developed my own little utility to synchronize dbobjects because of that). BTW: you can certainly add/drop fields in a merge replication but you need to do it in the publisher (so when he is working on his laptop he won't be able to modify the database schema). Regards, José. [quoted text, click to view] "Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e$Ay5Rz5FHA.884@TK2MSFTNGP14.phx.gbl... > Merge replication can replication all objects including UDFs and procedures. > You can add and drop columns from existing merge replication topologies > using sp_repladdcolumn or sp_repldropcolumn. > > "José Araujo" <josea@mcrinc.com> wrote in message > news:%23k2iqRv5FHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > > That would work just fine for the data and the tables. > > > > However, for the stored procedures and UDFs you need to come up with > > something else (unless you're keeping that into your source control > > repository). > > > > BTW: using merge replication (don't know about transactional) you are not > > going to be able to modify the tables schema in the subscriber (laptop). > > > > José. > > > > "Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message > > news:%233MDB7t5FHA.964@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > >> Andreas, > >> bidirectional transactional replication or merge would seem to be most > >> suitable, with queued updating subscribers (QUS)transactional also a > >> posibility. Out of the box merge or QUS are easier to set up. > >> Cheers, > >> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com > >> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book: > >> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html) > >> > >> > > > > > >
Don't see an easy answer - unless you're the only developer in the project
(when you switch you can generate scripts for dbobjects and copy them to the new database, and do the same when you switch back). José. [quoted text, click to view] "Andreas Håkansson" <andreas@selfinflicted.org> wrote in message news:uIZv7u25FHA.4076@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > Hilary Cotter wrote: > > Merge replication can replication all objects including UDFs and procedures. > > You can add and drop columns from existing merge replication topologies > > using sp_repladdcolumn or sp_repldropcolumn. > > > > "José Araujo" <josea@mcrinc.com> wrote in message > > news:%23k2iqRv5FHA.3296@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl... > > > >>That would work just fine for the data and the tables. > >> > >>However, for the stored procedures and UDFs you need to come up with > >>something else (unless you're keeping that into your source control > >>repository). > >> > >>BTW: using merge replication (don't know about transactional) you are not > >>going to be able to modify the tables schema in the subscriber (laptop). > >> > >>José. > >> > >>"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message > >>news:%233MDB7t5FHA.964@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl... > >> > >>>Andreas, > >>>bidirectional transactional replication or merge would seem to be most > >>>suitable, with queued updating subscribers (QUS)transactional also a > >>>posibility. Out of the box merge or QUS are easier to set up. > >>>Cheers, > >>> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com > >>> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book: > >>> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html) > >>> > >>> > > Thank you to all who have replied. This is a first to me so I'am taking > baby steps forward :) One thing I need to understand - If I setup a > merge replication does it define exactly what to merge (which tables, > udfs, procedures etc.) and I can't just say "what ever's new/changed in > the entire database should be included" ? > > Since it's in the development phase I will add and tweak existing > tables, procedures etc. So having keep track of all the changes myself > and add them to the merge replication "set" would be a tedious task and > actually not remove much of the manual work I'd have to do without the > replication ? > > Thanks, > > > Andreas Håkansson
Don't see what you're looking for? Try a search.
|
April 2003
June 2003
July 2003
August 2003
September 2003
October 2003
November 2003
December 2003
January 2004
February 2004
March 2004
April 2004
May 2004
June 2004
July 2004
August 2004
September 2004
October 2004
November 2004
December 2004
January 2005
February 2005
March 2005
April 2005
May 2005
June 2005
July 2005
August 2005
September 2005
October 2005
November 2005
December 2005
January 2006
February 2006
March 2006
April 2006
May 2006
June 2006
July 2006
August 2006
September 2006
October 2006
November 2006
December 2006
January 2007
February 2007
March 2007
April 2007
May 2007
June 2007
July 2007
August 2007
September 2007
October 2007
November 2007
| home · blog · groups | Questions? Comments? Contact the dn |