Comments for Coding Obsession http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com Fri, 12 Mar 2010 13:50:43 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 Comment on Don’t trust SQL Server 2005 “Deferred Name Resolution” by Michal http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/29/dont-trust-sql-server-2005-deferred-name-resolution/comment-page-1/#comment-9799 Michal Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:45:40 +0000 http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/29/dont-trust-sql-server-2005-deferred-name-resolution/#comment-9799 Hello, I have to the exact same conclusions as you did, recently in a project I am participating in - do you have any update (or official wording about that from MS) about that discrepancy from the documented behaviour? Best Regards, Hello,

I have to the exact same conclusions as you did, recently in a project I am participating in - do you have any update (or official wording about that from MS) about that discrepancy from the documented behaviour?

Best Regards,

]]> Comment on Exporting SQL Server 2005 database objects to files by hypermente http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/11/exporting-sql-server-2005-database-objects-to-files/comment-page-1/#comment-9146 hypermente Thu, 14 Jan 2010 20:14:10 +0000 http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/11/exporting-sql-server-2005-database-objects-to-files/#comment-9146 I have just found this post and it help me a lot!! Thanks for sharing. I have used your script as a basis for my own script. I'm setting up replication (not child's play) and was in need of a way to modify all triggers in the subscriber database to include the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause. I was using syscomments and had already detected the outdated source code problem. Now my script finds the correct code and make the appropriate changes. So, thanks again. I have just found this post and it help me a lot!! Thanks for sharing.
I have used your script as a basis for my own script.
I’m setting up replication (not child’s play) and was in need of a way to modify all triggers in the subscriber database to include the NOT FOR REPLICATION clause. I was using syscomments and had already detected the outdated source code problem. Now my script finds the correct code and make the appropriate changes.
So, thanks again.

]]> Comment on Follow-up to “Strange bug in SQL Server 2005” by Coding Obsession » Don’t trust SQL Server 2005 “Deferred Name Resolution” http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/12/follow-up-to-strange-bug-in-sql-server-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-4863 Coding Obsession » Don’t trust SQL Server 2005 “Deferred Name Resolution” Fri, 29 May 2009 07:20:35 +0000 http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/12/follow-up-to-strange-bug-in-sql-server-2005/#comment-4863 [...] I’ve mentioned before, this stored procedure will be created by SQL Server 2005 without throwing any error message or [...] [...] I’ve mentioned before, this stored procedure will be created by SQL Server 2005 without throwing any error message or [...]

]]> Comment on Strange bug in SQL Server 2005 by Coding Obsession » Follow-up to “Strange bug in SQL Server 2005” http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/10/strange-bug-in-sql-server-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-4387 Coding Obsession » Follow-up to “Strange bug in SQL Server 2005” Tue, 12 May 2009 14:43:48 +0000 http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/10/strange-bug-in-sql-server-2005/#comment-4387 [...] friend Michael Dorman left the following comment on my post about a bug in SQL Server 2005: Stored Procedure creation in T-SQL doesn’t guarantee to check to see that the dependent objects [...] [...] friend Michael Dorman left the following comment on my post about a bug in SQL Server 2005: Stored Procedure creation in T-SQL doesn’t guarantee to check to see that the dependent objects [...]

]]> Comment on Strange bug in SQL Server 2005 by Julián Hidalgo http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/10/strange-bug-in-sql-server-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-4385 Julián Hidalgo Tue, 12 May 2009 13:08:53 +0000 http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/10/strange-bug-in-sql-server-2005/#comment-4385 @Michael Please read my reply here: http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/12/follow-up-to-strange-bug-in-sql-server-2005/ @Michael
Please read my reply here: http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/12/follow-up-to-strange-bug-in-sql-server-2005/

]]> Comment on Strange bug in SQL Server 2005 by Michael Dorfman http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/10/strange-bug-in-sql-server-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-4379 Michael Dorfman Tue, 12 May 2009 09:44:30 +0000 http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/10/strange-bug-in-sql-server-2005/#comment-4379 Stored Procedure creation in T-SQL doesn't guarantee to check to see that the dependent objects exist. That's not a bug, it's by design. It wouldn't be terribly useful if it did, anyway, as you could always drop the table later, leaving you with the same problem. Stored Procedure creation in T-SQL doesn’t guarantee to check to see that the dependent objects exist. That’s not a bug, it’s by design.

It wouldn’t be terribly useful if it did, anyway, as you could always drop the table later, leaving you with the same problem.

]]> Comment on Little trick to query a SQL Server database’s schema by Coding Obsession » Exporting SQL Server 2005 database objects to files http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/03/04/little-trick-to-query-a-sql-server-databases-schema/comment-page-1/#comment-4355 Coding Obsession » Exporting SQL Server 2005 database objects to files Mon, 11 May 2009 14:21:13 +0000 http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/?p=31#comment-4355 [...] It turns out you can only trust the 4th option, as the others can return outdated results. I always use sys.sql_modules anyway, because it’s the way SQL Server Management Studio does it (something I discovered by spying on it). [...] [...] It turns out you can only trust the 4th option, as the others can return outdated results. I always use sys.sql_modules anyway, because it’s the way SQL Server Management Studio does it (something I discovered by spying on it). [...]

]]> Comment on Strange bug in SQL Server 2005 by Strange bug in SQL Server 2005 - DbRunas http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/10/strange-bug-in-sql-server-2005/comment-page-1/#comment-4338 Strange bug in SQL Server 2005 - DbRunas Mon, 11 May 2009 00:21:42 +0000 http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/10/strange-bug-in-sql-server-2005/#comment-4338 [...] http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/10/strange-bug-in-sql-server-2005/ [...] [...] http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2009/05/10/strange-bug-in-sql-server-2005/ [...]

]]> Comment on Gallio and MbUnit v3.04 by Julián Hidalgo http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2008/10/17/gallio-and-mbunit-v304/comment-page-1/#comment-30 Julián Hidalgo Sat, 18 Oct 2008 03:23:48 +0000 http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2008/10/17/gallio-and-mbunit-v304/#comment-30 I'm sorry Vadim! I saw Jeff spelled it "Vadimir" and I thought Vadim was an abbreviation :) Fixed! I’m sorry Vadim! I saw Jeff spelled it “Vadimir” and I thought Vadim was an abbreviation :)
Fixed!

]]> Comment on Gallio and MbUnit v3.04 by Vadim http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2008/10/17/gallio-and-mbunit-v304/comment-page-1/#comment-29 Vadim Sat, 18 Oct 2008 00:37:27 +0000 http://techblog.julianhidalgo.com/2008/10/17/gallio-and-mbunit-v304/#comment-29 Julian, thanks for the credit. You got my first name almost correct.:) Julian, thanks for the credit. You got my first name almost correct.:)

]]>