Hello everyone,
Please forgive me as I'm VERY new to SQL Server. I am (in a former and
current life) a Oracle Certified Master DBA, however, I've been given a
new project -- SQL Server 2005 to administrate. Although I'm going
through some material on SQL Server, I do have two questions that
hopefully someone can answer for me.
I first want to make a READ-ONLY user (a user who can only query the
database) but not do any updates, deletes, etc. I added a local group
to the box (and put the users into that local group) and then added
that group to the "master" security users and then added that group to
the specific database I want them to have access to.
My question is, I don't see where I can make that group readonly to
that specific database, and I also don't see where I can give them
access to ONLY that one database. They can so far query the other
remaining 6 databases on the system by using owner.schema.table syntax,
and I don't want them to be able to do that.
I know this is prob. a pretty simple question and task, but I'm stumped
at how SQL Server does this... although i'm sure the solution is as
simple as the question.
Thanks for all your imput and help!
Create a SQL Login or add the users Windows account (or
Windows group) as a login on the SQL Server box. The login
gives the user access to the server but not to the databases
themselves. It's kind of like a grant connect.
For read only access to a particular database, you can then
add that login as a user in the database and add the user to
the built in database role db_datareader. That would give
the user select on the tables. You could additionally add
the user to db_denydatawriter and that would deny their
ability to insert, update, delete on the tables.
As for why you are seeing some variances, permissions are
cumulative. If the user is a member of other groups that
have access to databases, database objects then the user
gets access that way. If the public database role has been
granted access more than the default access, the user would
pick these up as well as all database users are members of
the public role.
The user having access to the other databases you don't
explicitly add the user to could be due to membership in a
windows group that has been given access - so they inherit
access to the database through their group membership. Or
enabling the guest account in that database. If the guest
account is enabled, anyone with a login can access the
database. By default of how the public role works, the user
would have access to anything granted to public. The guest
account can also be granted additional permissions although
this isn't really a good idea. The guest account is always
exists in master and tempdb and can't be removed from those
two databases.
-Sue
On 14 Mar 2006 08:38:17 -0800, "Greg" <gregcpx@.hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>Please forgive me as I'm VERY new to SQL Server. I am (in a former and
>current life) a Oracle Certified Master DBA, however, I've been given a
>new project -- SQL Server 2005 to administrate. Although I'm going
>through some material on SQL Server, I do have two questions that
>hopefully someone can answer for me.
>I first want to make a READ-ONLY user (a user who can only query the
>database) but not do any updates, deletes, etc. I added a local group
>to the box (and put the users into that local group) and then added
>that group to the "master" security users and then added that group to
>the specific database I want them to have access to.
>My question is, I don't see where I can make that group readonly to
>that specific database, and I also don't see where I can give them
>access to ONLY that one database. They can so far query the other
>remaining 6 databases on the system by using owner.schema.table syntax,
>and I don't want them to be able to do that.
>I know this is prob. a pretty simple question and task, but I'm stumped
>at how SQL Server does this... although i'm sure the solution is as
>simple as the question.
>Thanks for all your imput and help!
Showing posts with label specific. Show all posts
Showing posts with label specific. Show all posts
Friday, March 23, 2012
Read only and access to specific databases
Hello everyone,
Please forgive me as I'm VERY new to SQL Server. I am (in a former and
current life) a Oracle Certified Master DBA, however, I've been given a
new project -- SQL Server 2005 to administrate. Although I'm going
through some material on SQL Server, I do have two questions that
hopefully someone can answer for me.
I first want to make a READ-ONLY user (a user who can only query the
database) but not do any updates, deletes, etc. I added a local group
to the box (and put the users into that local group) and then added
that group to the "master" security users and then added that group to
the specific database I want them to have access to.
My question is, I don't see where I can make that group readonly to
that specific database, and I also don't see where I can give them
access to ONLY that one database. They can so far query the other
remaining 6 databases on the system by using owner.schema.table syntax,
and I don't want them to be able to do that.
I know this is prob. a pretty simple question and task, but I'm stumped
at how SQL Server does this... although i'm sure the solution is as
simple as the question.
Thanks for all your imput and help!Create a SQL Login or add the users Windows account (or
Windows group) as a login on the SQL Server box. The login
gives the user access to the server but not to the databases
themselves. It's kind of like a grant connect.
For read only access to a particular database, you can then
add that login as a user in the database and add the user to
the built in database role db_datareader. That would give
the user select on the tables. You could additionally add
the user to db_denydatawriter and that would deny their
ability to insert, update, delete on the tables.
As for why you are seeing some variances, permissions are
cumulative. If the user is a member of other groups that
have access to databases, database objects then the user
gets access that way. If the public database role has been
granted access more than the default access, the user would
pick these up as well as all database users are members of
the public role.
The user having access to the other databases you don't
explicitly add the user to could be due to membership in a
windows group that has been given access - so they inherit
access to the database through their group membership. Or
enabling the guest account in that database. If the guest
account is enabled, anyone with a login can access the
database. By default of how the public role works, the user
would have access to anything granted to public. The guest
account can also be granted additional permissions although
this isn't really a good idea. The guest account is always
exists in master and tempdb and can't be removed from those
two databases.
-Sue
On 14 Mar 2006 08:38:17 -0800, "Greg" <gregcpx@.hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>Please forgive me as I'm VERY new to SQL Server. I am (in a former and
>current life) a Oracle Certified Master DBA, however, I've been given a
>new project -- SQL Server 2005 to administrate. Although I'm going
>through some material on SQL Server, I do have two questions that
>hopefully someone can answer for me.
>I first want to make a READ-ONLY user (a user who can only query the
>database) but not do any updates, deletes, etc. I added a local group
>to the box (and put the users into that local group) and then added
>that group to the "master" security users and then added that group to
>the specific database I want them to have access to.
>My question is, I don't see where I can make that group readonly to
>that specific database, and I also don't see where I can give them
>access to ONLY that one database. They can so far query the other
>remaining 6 databases on the system by using owner.schema.table syntax,
>and I don't want them to be able to do that.
>I know this is prob. a pretty simple question and task, but I'm stumped
>at how SQL Server does this... although i'm sure the solution is as
>simple as the question.
>Thanks for all your imput and help!
Please forgive me as I'm VERY new to SQL Server. I am (in a former and
current life) a Oracle Certified Master DBA, however, I've been given a
new project -- SQL Server 2005 to administrate. Although I'm going
through some material on SQL Server, I do have two questions that
hopefully someone can answer for me.
I first want to make a READ-ONLY user (a user who can only query the
database) but not do any updates, deletes, etc. I added a local group
to the box (and put the users into that local group) and then added
that group to the "master" security users and then added that group to
the specific database I want them to have access to.
My question is, I don't see where I can make that group readonly to
that specific database, and I also don't see where I can give them
access to ONLY that one database. They can so far query the other
remaining 6 databases on the system by using owner.schema.table syntax,
and I don't want them to be able to do that.
I know this is prob. a pretty simple question and task, but I'm stumped
at how SQL Server does this... although i'm sure the solution is as
simple as the question.
Thanks for all your imput and help!Create a SQL Login or add the users Windows account (or
Windows group) as a login on the SQL Server box. The login
gives the user access to the server but not to the databases
themselves. It's kind of like a grant connect.
For read only access to a particular database, you can then
add that login as a user in the database and add the user to
the built in database role db_datareader. That would give
the user select on the tables. You could additionally add
the user to db_denydatawriter and that would deny their
ability to insert, update, delete on the tables.
As for why you are seeing some variances, permissions are
cumulative. If the user is a member of other groups that
have access to databases, database objects then the user
gets access that way. If the public database role has been
granted access more than the default access, the user would
pick these up as well as all database users are members of
the public role.
The user having access to the other databases you don't
explicitly add the user to could be due to membership in a
windows group that has been given access - so they inherit
access to the database through their group membership. Or
enabling the guest account in that database. If the guest
account is enabled, anyone with a login can access the
database. By default of how the public role works, the user
would have access to anything granted to public. The guest
account can also be granted additional permissions although
this isn't really a good idea. The guest account is always
exists in master and tempdb and can't be removed from those
two databases.
-Sue
On 14 Mar 2006 08:38:17 -0800, "Greg" <gregcpx@.hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>Please forgive me as I'm VERY new to SQL Server. I am (in a former and
>current life) a Oracle Certified Master DBA, however, I've been given a
>new project -- SQL Server 2005 to administrate. Although I'm going
>through some material on SQL Server, I do have two questions that
>hopefully someone can answer for me.
>I first want to make a READ-ONLY user (a user who can only query the
>database) but not do any updates, deletes, etc. I added a local group
>to the box (and put the users into that local group) and then added
>that group to the "master" security users and then added that group to
>the specific database I want them to have access to.
>My question is, I don't see where I can make that group readonly to
>that specific database, and I also don't see where I can give them
>access to ONLY that one database. They can so far query the other
>remaining 6 databases on the system by using owner.schema.table syntax,
>and I don't want them to be able to do that.
>I know this is prob. a pretty simple question and task, but I'm stumped
>at how SQL Server does this... although i'm sure the solution is as
>simple as the question.
>Thanks for all your imput and help!
Read only and access to specific databases
Hello everyone,
Please forgive me as I'm VERY new to SQL Server. I am (in a former and
current life) a Oracle Certified Master DBA, however, I've been given a
new project -- SQL Server 2005 to administrate. Although I'm going
through some material on SQL Server, I do have two questions that
hopefully someone can answer for me.
I first want to make a READ-ONLY user (a user who can only query the
database) but not do any updates, deletes, etc. I added a local group
to the box (and put the users into that local group) and then added
that group to the "master" security users and then added that group to
the specific database I want them to have access to.
My question is, I don't see where I can make that group readonly to
that specific database, and I also don't see where I can give them
access to ONLY that one database. They can so far query the other
remaining 6 databases on the system by using owner.schema.table syntax,
and I don't want them to be able to do that.
I know this is prob. a pretty simple question and task, but I'm stumped
at how SQL Server does this... although i'm sure the solution is as
simple as the question.
Thanks for all your imput and help!Create a SQL Login or add the users Windows account (or
Windows group) as a login on the SQL Server box. The login
gives the user access to the server but not to the databases
themselves. It's kind of like a grant connect.
For read only access to a particular database, you can then
add that login as a user in the database and add the user to
the built in database role db_datareader. That would give
the user select on the tables. You could additionally add
the user to db_denydatawriter and that would deny their
ability to insert, update, delete on the tables.
As for why you are seeing some variances, permissions are
cumulative. If the user is a member of other groups that
have access to databases, database objects then the user
gets access that way. If the public database role has been
granted access more than the default access, the user would
pick these up as well as all database users are members of
the public role.
The user having access to the other databases you don't
explicitly add the user to could be due to membership in a
windows group that has been given access - so they inherit
access to the database through their group membership. Or
enabling the guest account in that database. If the guest
account is enabled, anyone with a login can access the
database. By default of how the public role works, the user
would have access to anything granted to public. The guest
account can also be granted additional permissions although
this isn't really a good idea. The guest account is always
exists in master and tempdb and can't be removed from those
two databases.
-Sue
On 14 Mar 2006 08:38:17 -0800, "Greg" <gregcpx@.hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>Please forgive me as I'm VERY new to SQL Server. I am (in a former and
>current life) a Oracle Certified Master DBA, however, I've been given a
>new project -- SQL Server 2005 to administrate. Although I'm going
>through some material on SQL Server, I do have two questions that
>hopefully someone can answer for me.
>I first want to make a READ-ONLY user (a user who can only query the
>database) but not do any updates, deletes, etc. I added a local group
>to the box (and put the users into that local group) and then added
>that group to the "master" security users and then added that group to
>the specific database I want them to have access to.
>My question is, I don't see where I can make that group readonly to
>that specific database, and I also don't see where I can give them
>access to ONLY that one database. They can so far query the other
>remaining 6 databases on the system by using owner.schema.table syntax,
>and I don't want them to be able to do that.
>I know this is prob. a pretty simple question and task, but I'm stumped
>at how SQL Server does this... although i'm sure the solution is as
>simple as the question.
>Thanks for all your imput and help!
Please forgive me as I'm VERY new to SQL Server. I am (in a former and
current life) a Oracle Certified Master DBA, however, I've been given a
new project -- SQL Server 2005 to administrate. Although I'm going
through some material on SQL Server, I do have two questions that
hopefully someone can answer for me.
I first want to make a READ-ONLY user (a user who can only query the
database) but not do any updates, deletes, etc. I added a local group
to the box (and put the users into that local group) and then added
that group to the "master" security users and then added that group to
the specific database I want them to have access to.
My question is, I don't see where I can make that group readonly to
that specific database, and I also don't see where I can give them
access to ONLY that one database. They can so far query the other
remaining 6 databases on the system by using owner.schema.table syntax,
and I don't want them to be able to do that.
I know this is prob. a pretty simple question and task, but I'm stumped
at how SQL Server does this... although i'm sure the solution is as
simple as the question.
Thanks for all your imput and help!Create a SQL Login or add the users Windows account (or
Windows group) as a login on the SQL Server box. The login
gives the user access to the server but not to the databases
themselves. It's kind of like a grant connect.
For read only access to a particular database, you can then
add that login as a user in the database and add the user to
the built in database role db_datareader. That would give
the user select on the tables. You could additionally add
the user to db_denydatawriter and that would deny their
ability to insert, update, delete on the tables.
As for why you are seeing some variances, permissions are
cumulative. If the user is a member of other groups that
have access to databases, database objects then the user
gets access that way. If the public database role has been
granted access more than the default access, the user would
pick these up as well as all database users are members of
the public role.
The user having access to the other databases you don't
explicitly add the user to could be due to membership in a
windows group that has been given access - so they inherit
access to the database through their group membership. Or
enabling the guest account in that database. If the guest
account is enabled, anyone with a login can access the
database. By default of how the public role works, the user
would have access to anything granted to public. The guest
account can also be granted additional permissions although
this isn't really a good idea. The guest account is always
exists in master and tempdb and can't be removed from those
two databases.
-Sue
On 14 Mar 2006 08:38:17 -0800, "Greg" <gregcpx@.hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Hello everyone,
>Please forgive me as I'm VERY new to SQL Server. I am (in a former and
>current life) a Oracle Certified Master DBA, however, I've been given a
>new project -- SQL Server 2005 to administrate. Although I'm going
>through some material on SQL Server, I do have two questions that
>hopefully someone can answer for me.
>I first want to make a READ-ONLY user (a user who can only query the
>database) but not do any updates, deletes, etc. I added a local group
>to the box (and put the users into that local group) and then added
>that group to the "master" security users and then added that group to
>the specific database I want them to have access to.
>My question is, I don't see where I can make that group readonly to
>that specific database, and I also don't see where I can give them
>access to ONLY that one database. They can so far query the other
>remaining 6 databases on the system by using owner.schema.table syntax,
>and I don't want them to be able to do that.
>I know this is prob. a pretty simple question and task, but I'm stumped
>at how SQL Server does this... although i'm sure the solution is as
>simple as the question.
>Thanks for all your imput and help!
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Read all xml files from a folder
I have a script that can read specific files that are in an xml format, but i
need to modifiy it to read all files from a folder. In this case, I do not
know the file names but I do know that I need to read all of them. Does
anyone have a VB activeX script for this for MS SQL server 2000?
Thanks
You would use the Scripting.FileSystemObject to iterate
through the files in folder:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20030627b.asp
2004 and 2005 Microsoft MVP C#
Robbe Morris
http://www.masterado.net
Earn $$$ money answering .NET Framework
messageboard posts at EggHeadCafe.com.
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/forums/merit.asp
"Ben" <ben_1_ AT hotmail DOT com> wrote in message
news:F70A712A-6D8C-4C9B-BE36-4EBA01B27A94@.microsoft.com...
>I have a script that can read specific files that are in an xml format, but
>i
> need to modifiy it to read all files from a folder. In this case, I do
> not
> know the file names but I do know that I need to read all of them. Does
> anyone have a VB activeX script for this for MS SQL server 2000?
> Thanks
|||Thanks Robbe. Your post/page/article worked like a charm!!
Ben
"Robbe Morris [C# MVP]" wrote:
> You would use the Scripting.FileSystemObject to iterate
> through the files in folder:
> http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20030627b.asp
> --
> 2004 and 2005 Microsoft MVP C#
> Robbe Morris
> http://www.masterado.net
> Earn $$$ money answering .NET Framework
> messageboard posts at EggHeadCafe.com.
> http://www.eggheadcafe.com/forums/merit.asp
>
> "Ben" <ben_1_ AT hotmail DOT com> wrote in message
> news:F70A712A-6D8C-4C9B-BE36-4EBA01B27A94@.microsoft.com...
>
>
sql
need to modifiy it to read all files from a folder. In this case, I do not
know the file names but I do know that I need to read all of them. Does
anyone have a VB activeX script for this for MS SQL server 2000?
Thanks
You would use the Scripting.FileSystemObject to iterate
through the files in folder:
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20030627b.asp
2004 and 2005 Microsoft MVP C#
Robbe Morris
http://www.masterado.net
Earn $$$ money answering .NET Framework
messageboard posts at EggHeadCafe.com.
http://www.eggheadcafe.com/forums/merit.asp
"Ben" <ben_1_ AT hotmail DOT com> wrote in message
news:F70A712A-6D8C-4C9B-BE36-4EBA01B27A94@.microsoft.com...
>I have a script that can read specific files that are in an xml format, but
>i
> need to modifiy it to read all files from a folder. In this case, I do
> not
> know the file names but I do know that I need to read all of them. Does
> anyone have a VB activeX script for this for MS SQL server 2000?
> Thanks
|||Thanks Robbe. Your post/page/article worked like a charm!!
Ben
"Robbe Morris [C# MVP]" wrote:
> You would use the Scripting.FileSystemObject to iterate
> through the files in folder:
> http://www.eggheadcafe.com/articles/20030627b.asp
> --
> 2004 and 2005 Microsoft MVP C#
> Robbe Morris
> http://www.masterado.net
> Earn $$$ money answering .NET Framework
> messageboard posts at EggHeadCafe.com.
> http://www.eggheadcafe.com/forums/merit.asp
>
> "Ben" <ben_1_ AT hotmail DOT com> wrote in message
> news:F70A712A-6D8C-4C9B-BE36-4EBA01B27A94@.microsoft.com...
>
>
sql
Reacting to DB events
I'd like to build an application that will react to specific changes to
data in a set of tables in a database. The application would replicate
these data changes to another database. The target database won't be
SQLServer. Neither is this simple replication, at times the application
will need to get extra data from the source database before the target
is updated.
In other DBMS systems I am involved with the DBMS has the facilty to
write to an application message queue so that the monitoring application
only has to monitor the queue rather than a database. What I'd like to
do is something like this:
1. Some application changes data in a table.
2. A trigger reacts to the change and writes a message to an application
queue.
3. A windows service/process monitors the queue and picks up the
message. It then carries out whatever replication/DB actions are necessary.
This would mean defining a number of new triggers on existing tables and
developing the windows service/process. Existing applications and the
existing tables in the database would remain unchanged. I'm not a
windows programmer but I have someone in my team who is and who will
build the windows service/process.
The bit I'm unsure about is how a trigger can write to an application
queue or communicate with the windows service/process. I may be using
the wrong terminology as I have more knowledge of Unix than Windows.
Could anyone help with how I can do this or suggest any alternative
strategies.
Thanks In Advance.
LaurenceYou can get all the queuing infrastructure for free. SQL Server 2005 include
s a functionality called
"Service Broker", where your trigger does SEND to write to the queue and the
service uses RECEIVE to
read off of the queue.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Laurence Breeze" <i.l.breeze@.open.ac.uk> wrote in message news:43A2EAFC.5020500@.open.ac.uk
..
> I'd like to build an application that will react to specific changes to da
ta in a set of tables in
> a database. The application would replicate these data changes to another
database. The target
> database won't be SQLServer. Neither is this simple replication, at times
the application will
> need to get extra data from the source database before the target is updat
ed.
> In other DBMS systems I am involved with the DBMS has the facilty to write
to an application
> message queue so that the monitoring application only has to monitor the q
ueue rather than a
> database. What I'd like to do is something like this:
> 1. Some application changes data in a table.
> 2. A trigger reacts to the change and writes a message to an application q
ueue.
> 3. A windows service/process monitors the queue and picks up the message.
It then carries out
> whatever replication/DB actions are necessary.
> This would mean defining a number of new triggers on existing tables and d
eveloping the windows
> service/process. Existing applications and the existing tables in the dat
abase would remain
> unchanged. I'm not a windows programmer but I have someone in my team who
is and who will build
> the windows service/process.
> The bit I'm unsure about is how a trigger can write to an application queu
e or communicate with
> the windows service/process. I may be using the wrong terminology as I ha
ve more knowledge of
> Unix than Windows.
> Could anyone help with how I can do this or suggest any alternative strate
gies.
> Thanks In Advance.
> Laurence
>|||Thanks Tibor,
We currently run SQL Server 2000 but will upgrade to 2005 in time. If
there's no way to do this in 2000 I'll have to wait a bit.
Thanks Again.
Laurence
Tibor Karaszi wrote:
> You can get all the queuing infrastructure for free. SQL Server 2005
> includes a functionality called "Service Broker", where your trigger
> does SEND to write to the queue and the service uses RECEIVE to read off
> of the queue.
>|||There is nothing that stop you from doing this now. Just have the trigger wr
ite to a table and have
the app polling the table, reading off of it and removing the rows that has
been handled. But, I
think you should look into Service Broker as it provide you with so much inf
rastructure code. At
least grab a book and read about SB (or play with it), so you can make the r
ight decision. I
wouldn't be surprised if you in the end decide to wait until 2005 is impleme
nted to cut down on the
dev time for this (thanks to Service Broker).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Laurence Breeze" <i.l.breeze@.open.ac.uk> wrote in message news:43A7CA1D.6060804@.open.ac.uk
..
> Thanks Tibor,
> We currently run SQL Server 2000 but will upgrade to 2005 in time. If the
re's no way to do this
> in 2000 I'll have to wait a bit.
> Thanks Again.
> Laurence
>
> Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>
data in a set of tables in a database. The application would replicate
these data changes to another database. The target database won't be
SQLServer. Neither is this simple replication, at times the application
will need to get extra data from the source database before the target
is updated.
In other DBMS systems I am involved with the DBMS has the facilty to
write to an application message queue so that the monitoring application
only has to monitor the queue rather than a database. What I'd like to
do is something like this:
1. Some application changes data in a table.
2. A trigger reacts to the change and writes a message to an application
queue.
3. A windows service/process monitors the queue and picks up the
message. It then carries out whatever replication/DB actions are necessary.
This would mean defining a number of new triggers on existing tables and
developing the windows service/process. Existing applications and the
existing tables in the database would remain unchanged. I'm not a
windows programmer but I have someone in my team who is and who will
build the windows service/process.
The bit I'm unsure about is how a trigger can write to an application
queue or communicate with the windows service/process. I may be using
the wrong terminology as I have more knowledge of Unix than Windows.
Could anyone help with how I can do this or suggest any alternative
strategies.
Thanks In Advance.
LaurenceYou can get all the queuing infrastructure for free. SQL Server 2005 include
s a functionality called
"Service Broker", where your trigger does SEND to write to the queue and the
service uses RECEIVE to
read off of the queue.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Laurence Breeze" <i.l.breeze@.open.ac.uk> wrote in message news:43A2EAFC.5020500@.open.ac.uk
..
> I'd like to build an application that will react to specific changes to da
ta in a set of tables in
> a database. The application would replicate these data changes to another
database. The target
> database won't be SQLServer. Neither is this simple replication, at times
the application will
> need to get extra data from the source database before the target is updat
ed.
> In other DBMS systems I am involved with the DBMS has the facilty to write
to an application
> message queue so that the monitoring application only has to monitor the q
ueue rather than a
> database. What I'd like to do is something like this:
> 1. Some application changes data in a table.
> 2. A trigger reacts to the change and writes a message to an application q
ueue.
> 3. A windows service/process monitors the queue and picks up the message.
It then carries out
> whatever replication/DB actions are necessary.
> This would mean defining a number of new triggers on existing tables and d
eveloping the windows
> service/process. Existing applications and the existing tables in the dat
abase would remain
> unchanged. I'm not a windows programmer but I have someone in my team who
is and who will build
> the windows service/process.
> The bit I'm unsure about is how a trigger can write to an application queu
e or communicate with
> the windows service/process. I may be using the wrong terminology as I ha
ve more knowledge of
> Unix than Windows.
> Could anyone help with how I can do this or suggest any alternative strate
gies.
> Thanks In Advance.
> Laurence
>|||Thanks Tibor,
We currently run SQL Server 2000 but will upgrade to 2005 in time. If
there's no way to do this in 2000 I'll have to wait a bit.
Thanks Again.
Laurence
Tibor Karaszi wrote:
> You can get all the queuing infrastructure for free. SQL Server 2005
> includes a functionality called "Service Broker", where your trigger
> does SEND to write to the queue and the service uses RECEIVE to read off
> of the queue.
>|||There is nothing that stop you from doing this now. Just have the trigger wr
ite to a table and have
the app polling the table, reading off of it and removing the rows that has
been handled. But, I
think you should look into Service Broker as it provide you with so much inf
rastructure code. At
least grab a book and read about SB (or play with it), so you can make the r
ight decision. I
wouldn't be surprised if you in the end decide to wait until 2005 is impleme
nted to cut down on the
dev time for this (thanks to Service Broker).
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
Blog: http://solidqualitylearning.com/blogs/tibor/
"Laurence Breeze" <i.l.breeze@.open.ac.uk> wrote in message news:43A7CA1D.6060804@.open.ac.uk
..
> Thanks Tibor,
> We currently run SQL Server 2000 but will upgrade to 2005 in time. If the
re's no way to do this
> in 2000 I'll have to wait a bit.
> Thanks Again.
> Laurence
>
> Tibor Karaszi wrote:
>
Friday, March 9, 2012
RDF XML
I know SQL Server 2005 can import/export xml files. Can it be specific for RDF XML files?
There is nothing specific in SQL Server for RDF-XML processing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)