Hugo Kornelis (6/10/2010)

---

Interesting find, Jason. I missed my point because I believed Books Online. The only small critisism (sp?) I have on this question is the incorrect use of uppercase ("MODEL" instead of "model"), which will cause errors on a server with a case sensitive collation.

UMG's comment is not entirely correct. SQL Server does nog ignore the READ_ONLY property in model; it just does not propagate it to the new database. Try createing a table in model after setting it to READ_ONLY; you'll see that this fails.

It does of course make sense that the READ_ONLY property won't propagate. After all, creating a database involves writing by itself! And I can also see the value in using READ_ONLY to protect from accidental changes to the model database.

It's just a big shame that the description in Books Online is completely wrong!

stewartc-708166 (6/10/2010)

---

Good question.
I found the inconsistency with BOL interesting.
Thanks

DavidSimpson (6/10/2010)

---

Good question which I missed because I thought that the model db could not be set to Read_only... very interesting. A good start to the day when you learn something new. As Hugo points out, though, it makes sense because there is value to set the model to read only to protect it from accidental changes once you have it set like you want.

David

johnf_amic (6/10/2010)

---

I got 3 out of 4 right. Don't I get partial credit?

CirquedeSQLeil (6/9/2010)

---

Thanks. True - BOL does state that the MODEL DB cannot be set to ReadOnly, that's why I found this to be an interesting behavior.

Thanks for pointing out the DB name too.