package detect that instance is already running?

Folks,

I have a package scheduled to run every hour.

Users have asked if, in addition to the scheduled run, they can have it

so that they could dump a file into the input directory and then

kick-off the package immediately.

Problem is that things fail if they try to start the package when the scheduled instance of the package is still running.

Is there any way that the package could check to see if an instance if

itself is currently executing and refuse to execute if there IS an

instance running?

PJHow do users start the package?

If they use the same job that you run periodically, just start it manually regardless of schedule using sp_start_job, the single-instance behavior will be implemented by Agent (sp_start_job fails if the job is currently running).|||

You can use the MSMQ package to synchronize packages.

Kirk Haselden
Author "SQL Server Integration Services"

|||

Hi Michael,

Currently I'm just piloting this by getting users to go to SQL Server Agent in the management studio, right clicking on the job and selecting "Start Job at step.."

and I was going to give them a small winforms app to run which would do it.. I suppose I could get the app to execute a call to sp_start_job now and when it fails just inform em that the scheduled job is running...

By the way, if the scheduled time between runs is too short.. and the job is started again before the previous run has completed.. Agent will just fail the new instance ? Is that right?

Thanks

PJ

|||

By the way, if the scheduled time between runs is too short.. and the job is started again before the previous run has completed.. Agent will just fail the new instance ? Is that right?

Yes, I believe Agent always ensures only instance of a Job is ever running, so it will not run the second instance in this scenario.

ownership chains, users and views

We have a design using views to partition visibility of table rows by sql us
er. Say we have two salesmen Fred and Barney, we wanted to create 2 views:
CREATE VIEW Fred.SALES_LEADS AS SELECT * FROM dbo.ALL_SALES_LEADS WHERE SALE
S_PERSON='Fred'
and
CREATE VIEW Barney.SALES_LEADS AS SELECT * FROM dbo.ALL_SALES_LEADS WHERE SA
LES_PERSON='Barney'
Neither salesman should be able to select from ALL_SALES_LEADS and each, bei
ng amazingly SQL savvy salesmen, can log on to sql and execute SELECT * FROM
SALES_LEADS WHERE STATUS='New'.
Problem is that neither because neither Fred nor Barney owns the ALL_SALES_L
EADS table, they can't select off the view with any combination of GRANT/DEN
Y/REVOKE statements that we can find because the ownership chains are broken
.
Our best fallback is to name the views differently but leave them owned by d
bo. Not as neat and tidy. ie
CREATE VIEW dbo.Fred_SALES_LEADS AS SELECT * FROM dbo.ALL_SALES_LEADS WHERE
SALES_PERSON='Fred'
GRANT SELECT ON dbo.Fred_SALES_LEADS TO Fred
Is there any way around our original problem, SQL gurus? I think this would
be a very good use of user-owned views in a number of realistic scenarios.> Our best fallback is to name the views differently but leave them owned by
dbo.
The table and view need to have the same owner in order to use views as a
security mechanism. If each salesperson accesses the database with their
own userid, you might consider filtering using database userid instead of a
hard-coded constant. This way, you only need one view. For example:
CREATE VIEW dbo.SALES_LEADS AS
SELECT *
FROM dbo.ALL_SALES_LEADS
WHERE SALES_PERSON = CURRENT_USER
GO
GRANT SELECT ON dbo.SALES_LEADS TO SalesRole
GO
Hope this helps.
Dan Guzman
SQL Server MVP
"Dave Cattermole" <anonymous@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:726B0928-E93C-4233-A5FE-051E8ADA5684@.microsoft.com...
> We have a design using views to partition visibility of table rows by sql
user. Say we have two salesmen Fred and Barney, we wanted to create 2 views:
> CREATE VIEW Fred.SALES_LEADS AS SELECT * FROM dbo.ALL_SALES_LEADS WHERE
SALES_PERSON='Fred'
> and
> CREATE VIEW Barney.SALES_LEADS AS SELECT * FROM dbo.ALL_SALES_LEADS WHERE
SALES_PERSON='Barney'
> Neither salesman should be able to select from ALL_SALES_LEADS and each,
being amazingly SQL savvy salesmen, can log on to sql and execute SELECT *
FROM SALES_LEADS WHERE STATUS='New'.
> Problem is that neither because neither Fred nor Barney owns the
ALL_SALES_LEADS table, they can't select off the view with any combination
of GRANT/DENY/REVOKE statements that we can find because the ownership
chains are broken .
> Our best fallback is to name the views differently but leave them owned by
dbo. Not as neat and tidy. ie
> CREATE VIEW dbo.Fred_SALES_LEADS AS SELECT * FROM dbo.ALL_SALES_LEADS
WHERE SALES_PERSON='Fred'
> GRANT SELECT ON dbo.Fred_SALES_LEADS TO Fred
> Is there any way around our original problem, SQL gurus? I think this
would be a very good use of user-owned views in a number of realistic
scenarios.

Own Query language for non-technical Users, any frameworks known?

Hello

We have the challenge to introduce for our database applications a
dynmaic search for the end users. The end users are non-technical
users.

I am looking therefore for possibilities which would allow to build own
query language with expressions according to the need and skills for
the users.

I found one product so far. "EasyAsk - Decision Adviser". does somebody
know also other tools or frameworks which can be integrated?

http://www.easyask.com/product*s/decision-advisor.cfm

The environment is currently MS SQL Servers and C# Webservices.My
vision is to have a framework or library which can be seamless
integrated into our existing solutions which is currently a smart C#
clients. i.e. by using web-service or an C# API.

thanks
Mark Egloffjoes (joes@.bluewin.ch) writes:
> We have the challenge to introduce for our database applications a
> dynmaic search for the end users. The end users are non-technical
> users.
> I am looking therefore for possibilities which would allow to build own
> query language with expressions according to the need and skills for
> the users.
> I found one product so far. "EasyAsk - Decision Adviser". does somebody
> know also other tools or frameworks which can be integrated?

SQL Server itself comes with English Query, but I have never looked at
it myself.

--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP, esquel@.sommarskog.se

Books Online for SQL Server SP3 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/techin.../2000/books.asp

Override a foreign key constraint

A website that I'm working on has users sign in and keeps a log of the pages they go to. The log table has a foreign key in it that links to the username is the users table. I need to update the username for one of the users but the foreign key is preventing me from doing so. What is the benefit of having a foreign key like this? Can I delete it to update the username or is there a better way?

Foreign Key constraints ensure the integrity of the data is maintained. If there was no FK in place. then it would be easy to get orphaned and inconsistent data. In your example, if you just update a username to be Bob from Terry then all the records associated with Terry in the log table will now have no link back to the users record ie the Terry records will be orphaned.

Soooooo, in answer to your question, you can drop it make your update but it will throw an error when you try and recreate the FK unless you update the log records too.

You can create these constraints with a cascading updates/deletes which will filter your changes down to the child tables but in this case, it looks like its turned off.

I'd suggest just doing the following

Psuedo code:

UPDATE Log set Username = Bob WHERE username = Terry

UPDATE user set username = Bob WHERE username = Terry.

HTH!

Overlapping Permissions

I would think the following scenario should work, but it does not:
I have a table, Products, for which all users, via an NT domain group (e.g.
Domain Users) have only select permissions.
There is another group, ProductManagers, who are also members of the above
group, who need update, delete, and insert permissions. To accomplish this,
I
created a database role ProductMgmt, and added the ProductManagers to it.
This role has select, insert, update and delete permissions on the table.
The members of this group, however, get an error when attempting to delete
from the table. These members belong to both the Domain User and
ProductManagers groups.
I've also given the ProductManager group full permissions on the table. I'm
confused as to why all of this is not working, obviously I'm missing
something.
Thanks for any assistance,
TomtDoes the NT group which has only select permissions have a
deny on delete? Do any users or groups have deny set on the
table?
Permissions are cumulative but deny will take precedence.
-Sue
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:51:03 -0800, "TomT" <tomt@.tomt.com>
wrote:

>I would think the following scenario should work, but it does not:
>I have a table, Products, for which all users, via an NT domain group (e.g.
>Domain Users) have only select permissions.
>There is another group, ProductManagers, who are also members of the above
>group, who need update, delete, and insert permissions. To accomplish this,
I
>created a database role ProductMgmt, and added the ProductManagers to it.
>This role has select, insert, update and delete permissions on the table.
>The members of this group, however, get an error when attempting to delete
>from the table. These members belong to both the Domain User and
>ProductManagers groups.
>I've also given the ProductManager group full permissions on the table. I'm
>confused as to why all of this is not working, obviously I'm missing
>something.
>Thanks for any assistance,
>Tomt
>|||Sue,
Thanks for your reply. No, there are no deny's on delete. I did know that
one, but am missing something...
Thanks
Tom
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> Does the NT group which has only select permissions have a
> deny on delete? Do any users or groups have deny set on the
> table?
> Permissions are cumulative but deny will take precedence.
> -Sue
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 14:51:03 -0800, "TomT" <tomt@.tomt.com>
> wrote:
>
>|||And there are no other Windows groups and no other roles in
that database? Just the two roles and the two NT groups?
And members of the ProductMgmt role can select, insert and
update but not delete?
-Sue
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:44:04 -0800, "TomT" <tomt@.tomt.com>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Sue,
>Thanks for your reply. No, there are no deny's on delete. I did know that
>one, but am missing something...
>Thanks
>Tom
>"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
>|||There's the Domain Users and two other non-NT, SQL Server accounts for web
access to the table.
There are no other roles other than the built-in roles. That group has
select, insert, update and delete permissions.
I'm going to have them try it again tomorrow, I might have overlooked
checking the delete permission, which is just due to trying to do too many
things at once...
I'll post the results tomorrow. Thanks for your assistance with this.
Tom
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> And there are no other Windows groups and no other roles in
> that database? Just the two roles and the two NT groups?
> And members of the ProductMgmt role can select, insert and
> update but not delete?
> -Sue
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 15:44:04 -0800, "TomT" <tomt@.tomt.com>
> wrote:
>
>|||Tom
Grant them EXECUTE permission on SP that perform DELETE/INSERT/UPDATE on
this table.
"TomT" <tomt@.tomt.com> wrote in message
news:F6DB5A9A-6ADF-4F89-89E8-9656A8962BFF@.microsoft.com...[vbcol=seagreen]
> There's the Domain Users and two other non-NT, SQL Server accounts for web
> access to the table.
> There are no other roles other than the built-in roles. That group has
> select, insert, update and delete permissions.
> I'm going to have them try it again tomorrow, I might have overlooked
> checking the delete permission, which is just due to trying to do too many
> things at once...
> I'll post the results tomorrow. Thanks for your assistance with this.
> Tom
> "Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
>
that[vbcol=seagreen]
group (e.g.[vbcol=seagreen]
above[vbcol=seagreen]
accomplish this, I[vbcol=seagreen]
to it.[vbcol=seagreen]
table.[vbcol=seagreen]
delete[vbcol=seagreen]
table. I'm[vbcol=seagreen]|||You really should check the other permissions as well as it
could make it easier for you to determine what has been
missed. Check the select, insert and update permissions as
well.
-Sue
On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 21:31:03 -0800, "TomT" <tomt@.tomt.com>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>There's the Domain Users and two other non-NT, SQL Server accounts for web
>access to the table.
>There are no other roles other than the built-in roles. That group has
>select, insert, update and delete permissions.
>I'm going to have them try it again tomorrow, I might have overlooked
>checking the delete permission, which is just due to trying to do too many
>things at once...
>I'll post the results tomorrow. Thanks for your assistance with this.
>Tom
>"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
>|||I checked them all, for that particular group, and still no go. I have to
grant the permissions for the Domain Users group for insert, delete, etc.
otherwise the group I really need to have this access does not.
To summarize: Two groups (NT) Domain Users, to which all users belong,
member of the public role, and ProductManagers, member of public and
ProductMgmt roles.
A user, Rod, belongs to both Domain Users and ProductManagers groups.
ProductMangers have select, insert, delete and update permissions on table;
Domain Users have Select permission only, no other permissions granted or
denied.
Database role ProductMgmt has full permissions on the table.
With the scenario above, Rod cannot delete from the table. I have to grant
delete permissions to Domain Users in order for him to be able to delete row
s
from the table.
I gather from your replies that this should work, and I have set it up
correctly, is that right?
Thanks,
Tom
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> You really should check the other permissions as well as it
> could make it easier for you to determine what has been
> missed. Check the select, insert and update permissions as
> well.
> -Sue
> On Tue, 9 Nov 2004 21:31:03 -0800, "TomT" <tomt@.tomt.com>
> wrote:
>
>|||Yes it will work so you are still missing something. I can't
reproduce the issue rebuilding with the same groups and
roles - it works fine on my end.
Try using xp_logininfo to determine the group membership and
dsiplay information on the Product Managers group at the
Windows level.
-Sue
On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:45:01 -0800, "TomT" <tomt@.tomt.com>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I checked them all, for that particular group, and still no go. I have to
>grant the permissions for the Domain Users group for insert, delete, etc.
>otherwise the group I really need to have this access does not.
>To summarize: Two groups (NT) Domain Users, to which all users belong,
>member of the public role, and ProductManagers, member of public and
>ProductMgmt roles.
>A user, Rod, belongs to both Domain Users and ProductManagers groups.
>ProductMangers have select, insert, delete and update permissions on table;
>Domain Users have Select permission only, no other permissions granted or
>denied.
>Database role ProductMgmt has full permissions on the table.
>With the scenario above, Rod cannot delete from the table. I have to grant
>delete permissions to Domain Users in order for him to be able to delete ro
ws
>from the table.
>I gather from your replies that this should work, and I have set it up
>correctly, is that right?
>Thanks,
>Tom
>"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:
>|||Sue,
I found the problem, the person who set up the NT user group
ProductManagers, set it up as a distribution group, not a security group.
Once that was fixed, everything works correctly.
BTW, I assume this would still work without the database role, i.e., just
the ProductManager group having the delete, etc. permissions assigned,
correct?
thanks for your help and patience,
Tom
"Sue Hoegemeier" wrote:

> Yes it will work so you are still missing something. I can't
> reproduce the issue rebuilding with the same groups and
> roles - it works fine on my end.
> Try using xp_logininfo to determine the group membership and
> dsiplay information on the Product Managers group at the
> Windows level.
> -Sue
> On Wed, 10 Nov 2004 08:45:01 -0800, "TomT" <tomt@.tomt.com>
> wrote:
>
>

Overhead of Multiple SQL Calls

Hey folks,
I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
VS.
b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat negligible,
especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be the
preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
Thanks!
(also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)Hi John,
I would think the network traffic would be significantly greater when
submiting 10 calls to get 1 record each as opposed to 1 call to get 10
records. That's automatically 10X the client-to-server network traffic.
Constantly opening and closing connections, as well as maintaining
connections that aren't in use, can use up a lot of resources on SQL Server
also. Now whether this should cause problems with a small number of users
is another story... It probably depends on how they're using the server...
Are they running automated reports that are requesting records one at a time
and might include thousands of separate requests? Or maybe they're just
accessing 30 records/hour on average each?
Connection pooling helps, but it can't compensate completely for a design
flaw.
Are you using C#.NET? If so, you might look into ADO.NET. ADO.NET is
designed to handle a lot of the management issues for you.
Thanks,
Mike C.
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:OHFsJQqHFHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hey folks,
> I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
> Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
> I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
> a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
> VS.
> b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
> Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat
> negligible,
> especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be
> the
> preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
> really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
> Thanks!
> (also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
>|||You have that many today but what about tomorrow? Seriously you should
always keep scalability in mind when designing the app and the schema. In
your example you are incurring about 10 times the overhead on not only the
server but the network and the client. There certainly may be times when it
might make sense to do it the A way but if you can do it the B way then you
should.
--
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:OHFsJQqHFHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hey folks,
> I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
> Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
> I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
> a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
> VS.
> b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
> Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat
> negligible,
> especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be
> the
> preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
> really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
> Thanks!
> (also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
>

Overhead of Multiple SQL Calls

Hey folks,
I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
VS.
b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat negligible,
especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be the
preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
Thanks!
(also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)Hi John,
I would think the network traffic would be significantly greater when
submiting 10 calls to get 1 record each as opposed to 1 call to get 10
records. That's automatically 10X the client-to-server network traffic.
Constantly opening and closing connections, as well as maintaining
connections that aren't in use, can use up a lot of resources on SQL Server
also. Now whether this should cause problems with a small number of users
is another story... It probably depends on how they're using the server...
Are they running automated reports that are requesting records one at a time
and might include thousands of separate requests? Or maybe they're just
accessing 30 records/hour on average each?
Connection pooling helps, but it can't compensate completely for a design
flaw.
Are you using C#.NET? If so, you might look into ADO.NET. ADO.NET is
designed to handle a lot of the management issues for you.
Thanks,
Mike C.
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:OHFsJQqHFHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hey folks,
> I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
> Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
> I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
> a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
> VS.
> b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
> Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat
> negligible,
> especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be
> the
> preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
> really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
> Thanks!
> (also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
>|||You have that many today but what about tomorrow? Seriously you should
always keep scalability in mind when designing the app and the schema. In
your example you are incurring about 10 times the overhead on not only the
server but the network and the client. There certainly may be times when it
might make sense to do it the A way but if you can do it the B way then you
should.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:OHFsJQqHFHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hey folks,
> I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
> Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
> I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
> a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
> VS.
> b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
> Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat
> negligible,
> especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be
> the
> preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
> really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
> Thanks!
> (also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
>

Overhead of Multiple SQL Calls

Hey folks,
I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
VS.
b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat negligible,
especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be the
preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
Thanks!
(also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
Hi John,
I would think the network traffic would be significantly greater when
submiting 10 calls to get 1 record each as opposed to 1 call to get 10
records. That's automatically 10X the client-to-server network traffic.
Constantly opening and closing connections, as well as maintaining
connections that aren't in use, can use up a lot of resources on SQL Server
also. Now whether this should cause problems with a small number of users
is another story... It probably depends on how they're using the server...
Are they running automated reports that are requesting records one at a time
and might include thousands of separate requests? Or maybe they're just
accessing 30 records/hour on average each?
Connection pooling helps, but it can't compensate completely for a design
flaw.
Are you using C#.NET? If so, you might look into ADO.NET. ADO.NET is
designed to handle a lot of the management issues for you.
Thanks,
Mike C.
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:OHFsJQqHFHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hey folks,
> I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
> Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
> I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
> a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
> VS.
> b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
> Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat
> negligible,
> especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be
> the
> preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
> really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
> Thanks!
> (also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
>
|||You have that many today but what about tomorrow? Seriously you should
always keep scalability in mind when designing the app and the schema. In
your example you are incurring about 10 times the overhead on not only the
server but the network and the client. There certainly may be times when it
might make sense to do it the A way but if you can do it the B way then you
should.
Andrew J. Kelly SQL MVP
"John Smith" <js@.no.com> wrote in message
news:OHFsJQqHFHA.560@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hey folks,
> I've got a client server C# Windows Form app that communicates with a SQL
> Server database backend. The number of users is less than 50.
> I'm wondering what the difference in overhead is when say:
> a) A Stored Procedure is called ten times, returning 1 record each time
> VS.
> b) The same Stored Procedure is called once returning 10 records
> Due to connection pooling I would think the overhead is somewhat
> negligible,
> especially when there's less than 50 users. I know option 'b' would be
> the
> preffered method when it comes to database communication, but is there
> really a BIG difference between the two when dealing with this few users?
> Thanks!
> (also posted on windows.forms newsgroup on Feb 25 with no response)
>

Overcoming orphans

How do you restore master to a new database and not orphan users in the
process?
Message posted via http://www.droptable.com
Look up sp_change_users_login in BOL.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Robert R via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:5d589125f94ca@.uwe...
> How do you restore master to a new database and not orphan users in the
> process?
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com

Overcoming orphans

How do you restore master to a new database and not orphan users in the
process?
Message posted via http://www.droptable.comLook up sp_change_users_login in BOL.
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Robert R via droptable.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:5d589125f94ca@.uwe...
> How do you restore master to a new database and not orphan users in the
> process?
> --
> Message posted via http://www.droptable.com

Overcoming orphans

How do you restore master to a new database and not orphan users in the
process?
--
Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.comLook up sp_change_users_login in BOL.
--
Geoff N. Hiten
Senior Database Administrator
Microsoft SQL Server MVP
"Robert R via SQLMonster.com" <u3288@.uwe> wrote in message
news:5d589125f94ca@.uwe...
> How do you restore master to a new database and not orphan users in the
> process?
> --
> Message posted via http://www.sqlmonster.com