Viewing 15 posts - 37,321 through 37,335 (of 49,566 total)
Then try explicitly casting your dates to string before concatenating them, use the CONVERT function.
August 1, 2009 at 9:04 am
If you replace the exec with a print statement in to print the full text of the dynamic SQL, what does it print?
Print 'SELECT databasename,starttime,eventclass,LoginName,TargetUsername,Objectname
FROM ' + @server + '.TRACEDB.dbo.TraceTable...
August 1, 2009 at 8:23 am
manoj2001 (8/1/2009)
My Question here is does this code works in SQl Server 2000
That code will work in SQL 2000. The SQL 2000 parser was rather lax in what it allowed...
August 1, 2009 at 6:39 am
Unless you had a trace running or a trigger on the table that captured that info, as far as I'm aware, you can't.
You should be able to get the uid...
August 1, 2009 at 3:41 am
Bear in mind that the transaction log was not intended as an audit log. It's used for SQL to do transaction rollbacks and to ensure database integrity.
August 1, 2009 at 2:47 am
No, and even if there was, you still wouldn't be able to get the host name. That information is not in the transaction log.
August 1, 2009 at 2:45 am
You can't kill system spids. The BRKR TASK sessions on my SQL box are sessions 10, 15 and 16. All system processes.
August 1, 2009 at 2:40 am
Jeff Moden (7/31/2009)
Sounds like interview questions... if I answer correctly, do I get the job?
Question is, do you want the job?
August 1, 2009 at 2:16 am
Jeff Moden (7/31/2009)
I'm always amazed at that... users not checking to see their own posts.
During that major problem a few weeks back, I had one guy post 15 times. After...
August 1, 2009 at 2:16 am
Also asked here: http://www.sqlservercentral.com/Forums/Topic763521-6-1.aspx
No replies to this thread please
August 1, 2009 at 2:13 am
Are you using SQL Log rescue? If so, I don't think the host name is saved in the transaction log. It's unnecessary for what the transaction log is - a...
August 1, 2009 at 2:10 am
Jeffrey Williams (7/31/2009)
August 1, 2009 at 2:05 am
Adam Angelini (7/31/2009)
August 1, 2009 at 2:04 am
As I said, you should take the order by out completely. In SQL 2005 and above, order by in a view is not honoured. SQL will ignore that TOP 100%...
August 1, 2009 at 2:01 am
It's complaining about the two-part naming in the order by, but you should just remove the order by and the Top 100 % completely. Order by is not honoured in...
July 31, 2009 at 2:14 pm
Viewing 15 posts - 37,321 through 37,335 (of 49,566 total)