default database

I using the copy database wizard to copy databases from one server to
another. When I copy a db to the new server, it changes the default db
setting for all the users of that db to 'master'. Am I not running the
wizard correctly?
If this is how it works, how do I reset the setting to the db name I want?
I can do it manually but I have atleat 5 databases I have to copy and each
has a lot of users.
Look up sp_defaultdb in Books Online.
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"sql" <sql@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F2413537-6302-4194-9D7E-4AEBCFBE28F4@.microsoft.com...
> I using the copy database wizard to copy databases from one server to
> another. When I copy a db to the new server, it changes the default db
> setting for all the users of that db to 'master'. Am I not running the
> wizard correctly?
> If this is how it works, how do I reset the setting to the db name I want?
> I can do it manually but I have atleat 5 databases I have to copy and each
> has a lot of users.
sql

default database

I using the copy database wizard to copy databases from one server to
another. When I copy a db to the new server, it changes the default db
setting for all the users of that db to 'master'. Am I not running the
wizard correctly?
If this is how it works, how do I reset the setting to the db name I want?
I can do it manually but I have atleat 5 databases I have to copy and each
has a lot of users.Look up sp_defaultdb in Books Online.
--
http://www.aspfaq.com/
(Reverse address to reply.)
"sql" <sql@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:F2413537-6302-4194-9D7E-4AEBCFBE28F4@.microsoft.com...
> I using the copy database wizard to copy databases from one server to
> another. When I copy a db to the new server, it changes the default db
> setting for all the users of that db to 'master'. Am I not running the
> wizard correctly?
> If this is how it works, how do I reset the setting to the db name I want?
> I can do it manually but I have atleat 5 databases I have to copy and each
> has a lot of users.

Debug DB Merge Replication

I setted a configuration with 2 SQL 2000 servers, 1 publisher and 1
subscriber, to manage a merge replication of a DB, with the wizard of
enterprise manager. It seems that some tables published as arcticles
are not synchronized correctly. I'm a newbie using SQL Server 2000 and
I don't know how to proceed for finding errors and resolve problems;
someone can give me any indication?
Thanks.
Marco - when you say they are not synchronized properly can you please give
more details. Do you have rown existing on the publisher but not subscriber
or vice versa or something different entirely. There are several
posibilities involving bulk loads or compensating changes or the merge agent
failing somehow or conflict resolution. If you provide some more details we
can help narrow down the cause.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
|||Paul Ibison ha scritto:

> Marco - when you say they are not synchronized properly can you please give
> more details. Do you have rown existing on the publisher but not subscriber
> or vice versa or something different entirely. There are several
> posibilities involving bulk loads or compensating changes or the merge agent
> failing somehow or conflict resolution. If you provide some more details we
> can help narrow down the cause.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
Hi Paul,
the situation is this: I have in a table 1 row which is different in
Subscriber from Publisher.
|||Assuming you have synchronized recently, there must have been a change
implemented without firing the merge triggers. Usuallt this is as a result
of a bulk insert, but in your case there seems to have been an update which
is odd, unless each record was added separately to the publisher and
subscriber as a part of a bulk process? Anyway, you could resort to
something like Lumigent's Log Explorer to see what is the root cause, and
use sp_mergedummyupdate to resync the row.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
|||Paul Ibison ha scritto:

> Assuming you have synchronized recently, there must have been a change
> implemented without firing the merge triggers. Usuallt this is as a result
> of a bulk insert, but in your case there seems to have been an update which
> is odd, unless each record was added separately to the publisher and
> subscriber as a part of a bulk process? Anyway, you could resort to
> something like Lumigent's Log Explorer to see what is the root cause, and
> use sp_mergedummyupdate to resync the row.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
Paul,
thanks for your suggestions.
Can you write the syntax to use the "sp_mergedummyupdate" ?
|||Hi Paul,
I'm not sure that there is only 1 row not updated. To be sure can I use
the sp_addtablecontents to force the update of all rows in my table?
Can you write an example of sintax for using this sp?
Thanks.
|||Marco,
the syntax is pretty straightforward:
exec sp_addtabletocontents
@.table_name ='yourtable',
@.owner_name = 'your owner eg dbo'
The @.owner_name is optional.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .
|||Hi Paul,
last question.
Is the same thing to execute the sp in the Publisher or in the
Subscriber DB ?
|||Hi Marco,
I suppose it depends on what the required outcome is. If you have a row that
is different on the publisher and subscriber and which hasn't been logged as
a merge change, then there will be different results depending on where you
run the proc. By default, if you run it on the subscriber and publisher,
there will be a conflict and the publisher's change will win, otherwise
running it just on the pub will mean that the publisher's change gets
propagated and likewise for the subscriber.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com .