Replication

SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.

Popular Topics

Home

Members

Calendar

Who's On

Home » Article Discussions » Article Discussions by Author » Discuss content posted by Vinay Thakur » Replication

26 posts, Page 3 of 3

«««1 2 3

Replication

Rate Topic

Display Mode

Topic Options

Author

Message

vk-kirov

Posted Wednesday, December 30, 2009 7:35 AM

Hall of Fame

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:50 PM
Points: 3,208, Visits: 4,178

skjoldtc (12/30/2009)

Is this a bug in SQL Server? Why would an instance that is not part of replication cause this behavior when removed?

The referenced article applies to SQL Server 2000 Standard Edition (see http://support.microsoft.com/kb/811008#appliesto). It looks like a bug in that edition. I hope there's no such bug in 2005 and 2008 Smile

Post #840315

DavidSimpson

Posted Wednesday, December 30, 2009 8:42 AM

SSC Eights!

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Thursday, June 13, 2013 8:16 AM
Points: 892, Visits: 935

I did not answer the question because I did not fully understand it. After reading the explanation on what was meant I would have missed it any way. I never would have thought having three instances of SQL Server with Instance 1(default) & 2 set up for replication then the process of uninstalling instance 3 would cause replication between 1 & 2 to fail. Interesting. Thank you for sharing your experience.

David

Post #840382

free_mascot

Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 12:07 AM

SSCommitted

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, June 11, 2013 2:03 AM
Points: 1,768, Visits: 1,313

I also go wrong...

I also think that there are only two instances. But actually it’s Total 3 instance including default.

If we think logically nothing should be affected. But I still doubts if it's bug or not and thinking how it's affect to the other instance???

---------------------------------------------------
"Thare are only 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand binary, and those who don't."

Post #840689

jkoon-760461

Posted Thursday, December 31, 2009 8:25 AM

Right there with Babe

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Wednesday, May 15, 2013 10:14 PM
Points: 784, Visits: 357

I agree that some proofreading/editing seems to be needed on submissions - even with some of the featured articles I've had to strain to reconstruct sentences into proper English syntax as I read them. This question was very difficult to understand and most certainly misworded - unless the word is uninstall, the question makes no sense at all.

Post #840833

Rome1981

Posted Tuesday, January 05, 2010 7:23 AM

Valued Member

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Tuesday, March 05, 2013 2:20 PM
Points: 63, Visits: 106

I want a refund on my point.

Post #842080

L' Eomot Inversé

Posted Friday, March 19, 2010 3:35 PM

SSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 5:53 PM
Points: 7,179, Visits: 7,276

Steve Jones - Editor (12/29/2009)

The grammar has been corrected. Apologies for any issues.

It would have been useful also to alter the question to make it clear it was talking about SQL 2000, and not about SQL 2008. (Actually, I don't know for sure whether that particular bug has been fixed or not, but I imagine MS will have fixed it as they haven't updated the list of products to which the bug applies to include SQL 2005 or SQL 2008).

Tom
Is minic a gheibheann béal oscailte dorn dúnta.
Is minig a cheapas beul fosgailte dòrn dùinte.

http://es.linkedin.com/in/tomthomsonsoftware

Post #886752

« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

26 posts, Page 3 of 3

«««1 2 3

Permissions