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!
Thanks Hugo. Also, thanks for correcting the case. I think the BOL description should be updated. It is still possible to interpret the findings of this test as supporting BOL (if you stretch it a bit). Think about it, you can set model to READ_ONLY however you can't enforce that setting on a new DB - which makes it appear that the setting is indeed not in effect on model.
However, I will have to investigate a bit further due to the behavior of the wizard. I need to see if I can duplicate the results of michael.kaufmann.
Jason...AKA CirqueDeSQLeil
_______________________________________________
I have given a name to my pain...MCM SQL Server, MVP
SQL RNNR
Posting Performance Based Questions - Gail Shaw[/url]
Learn Extended Events