"MorDeRor" <MorDeRor@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:21DD178B-AF4C-42AD-B939-12DA50D7593D@microsoft.com...
> Hello everyone,
>
> We have SQL 2000 servers connected by transactional replication. We are
> using custom SPs to push data accross. Suddenly this morning, replication
> started acting strange, to be more descriptive -
> one of the articles has 8 columns and is defined to use MCALL type SP for
> update.
> (veryfied via GUI and sp_helparticle), However, replication is actually
> generating a CALL type SP with 14 columns. Any ideas what could be wrong?
>
> Thanks

"MorDeRor" <MorDeRor@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:175FFE23-F3C0-4DA3-A7B8-832CD604664C@microsoft.com...
> thanks Hilary.
>
> BTW, enjoying your book on replication.
>
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote:
>
>> What MCall does IIRC is to only supply changed parameters and the PK
>> values
>> to the stored procedure, but it still uses the CALL syntax. This is
>> correct
>> behavior.
>>
>> --
>> Hilary Cotter
>> Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
>> RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
>>
>> This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
>> positions, strategies or opinions.
>>
>> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
>> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>>
>> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
>> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
>>
>>
>>
>> "MorDeRor" <MorDeRor@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:21DD178B-AF4C-42AD-B939-12DA50D7593D@microsoft.com...
>> > Hello everyone,
>> >
>> > We have SQL 2000 servers connected by transactional replication. We are
>> > using custom SPs to push data accross. Suddenly this morning,
>> > replication
>> > started acting strange, to be more descriptive -
>> > one of the articles has 8 columns and is defined to use MCALL type SP
>> > for
>> > update.
>> > (veryfied via GUI and sp_helparticle), However, replication is actually
>> > generating a CALL type SP with 14 columns. Any ideas what could be
>> > wrong?
>> >
>> > Thanks
>>
>>
>>