 |
|
|
|
Next: sdw
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Jan 27, 2010
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 1:53 pm
Post subject: 2008->2000 Transactional: Bug?
Archived from groups: microsoft>public>sqlserver>replication (more info?)
|
|
|
2008SP1 Publisher, Transactional, Queued
2000SP3 Subscriber
When I publish the table, 2008 implements Automatic Identity Range
Management by putting a identity range constraint on my SysID column.
When applying the snapshot to the subscriber, after all the data is
copied (a successful sync, by all accounts) this error occurs:
There is already an object named' repl_identity_range_tran_1143675122'
in the database (#2714).
Why is it trying to create this constraint twice? Do I have any
redress, other than turning off AIR management? I'm tempted to do
that anyway, since only the subscriber will be altering the data.
Thanks,
Joseph |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: May 05, 2010
Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Wed May 05, 2010 7:10 pm
Post subject: Re: 2008->2000 Transactional: Bug? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Hmm... I don't think this topology is supported. Things downstream
have to be at least the version of those upstream. That is publisher
version <= distributor version <= subscriber version.
--
Ben
On May 5, 3:53 pm, Joseph wrote:
> 2008SP1 Publisher, Transactional, Queued
> 2000SP3 Subscriber
>
> When I publish the table, 2008 implements Automatic Identity Range
> Management by putting a identity range constraint on my SysID column.
>
> When applying the snapshot to the subscriber, after all the data is
> copied (a successful sync, by all accounts) this error occurs:
> There is already an object named' repl_identity_range_tran_1143675122'
> in the database (#2714).
>
> Why is it trying to create this constraint twice? Do I have any
> redress, other than turning off AIR management? I'm tempted to do
> that anyway, since only the subscriber will be altering the data.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joseph |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 05, 2010
Posts: 3
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 5:06 am
Post subject: Re: 2008->2000 Transactional: Bug? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I'm not saying that it won't work. I'm saying that it's not
supported. So, if something breaks and you call MS to open a support
case, you'll either pay dearly for it or they'll say that you're out
of luck.
On May 18, 4:30 am, "Dan" wrote:
> I don't know about 2008, but that's not true for 2005. I have 2005 with
> transactional replication to a 2000 subscriber, and did up until 6 months
> ago have 2005 with transactional replication to a 7 subscriber and 2000
> replicating to a 7 subscriber (which had to be set up with a script as it
> wasn't possible with the GUI due to EM not supporting 2005 and SSMS not
> supporting 7).
>
> Dan
>
> "Ben Thul" wrote in message
>
>
>
> > Hmm... I don't think this topology is supported. Things downstream
> > have to be at least the version of those upstream. That is publisher
> > version <= distributor version <= subscriber version.
> > --
> > Ben
>
> > On May 5, 3:53 pm, Joseph wrote:
> >> 2008SP1 Publisher, Transactional, Queued
> >> 2000SP3 Subscriber
>
> >> When I publish the table, 2008 implements Automatic Identity Range
> >> Management by putting a identity range constraint on my SysID column.
>
> >> When applying the snapshot to the subscriber, after all the data is
> >> copied (a successful sync, by all accounts) this error occurs:
> >> There is already an object named' repl_identity_range_tran_1143675122'
> >> in the database (#2714).
>
> >> Why is it trying to create this constraint twice? Do I have any
> >> redress, other than turning off AIR management? I'm tempted to do
> >> that anyway, since only the subscriber will be altering the data.
>
> >> Thanks,
>
> >> Joseph >> Stay informed about: 2008->2000 Transactional: Bug? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 18, 2010
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 6:25 am
Post subject: Re: 2008->2000 Transactional: Bug? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
I don't know about 2008, but that's not true for 2005. I have 2005 with
transactional replication to a 2000 subscriber, and did up until 6 months
ago have 2005 with transactional replication to a 7 subscriber and 2000
replicating to a 7 subscriber (which had to be set up with a script as it
wasn't possible with the GUI due to EM not supporting 2005 and SSMS not
supporting 7).
Dan
"Ben Thul" wrote in message
> Hmm... I don't think this topology is supported. Things downstream
> have to be at least the version of those upstream. That is publisher
> version <= distributor version <= subscriber version.
> --
> Ben
>
> On May 5, 3:53 pm, Joseph wrote:
>> 2008SP1 Publisher, Transactional, Queued
>> 2000SP3 Subscriber
>>
>> When I publish the table, 2008 implements Automatic Identity Range
>> Management by putting a identity range constraint on my SysID column.
>>
>> When applying the snapshot to the subscriber, after all the data is
>> copied (a successful sync, by all accounts) this error occurs:
>> There is already an object named' repl_identity_range_tran_1143675122'
>> in the database (#2714).
>>
>> Why is it trying to create this constraint twice? Do I have any
>> redress, other than turning off AIR management? I'm tempted to do
>> that anyway, since only the subscriber will be altering the data.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Joseph
> >> Stay informed about: 2008->2000 Transactional: Bug? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 27, 2010
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 7:30 am
Post subject: Re: 2008->2000 Transactional: Bug? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
That's what I thought, but my painful experience these last couple of
weeks is that their seems to be alot of exceptions, or that the
supported configuration is very narrowly defined.
I would expect to be able to use the front end to subscribe to my 2008
pub without the error mentioned above...?
I'm moving back to Merge, me thinks.
Thanks,
Joseph
On May 18, 7:31 am, "Dan" wrote:
> According tohttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143241.aspx
> replication between 2000, 2005, and 2008 is supported. There's even the
> example note of a Distributor running 2008, Publisher on 2005, and
> Subscriber on 2000. Using mixed versions just means that only the lowest
> common features are available, but it's certainly a supported configuration.
> It also points out for transactional replication that a subscriber needs to
> be within 2 versions of the publisher - so 2000 subscribing from a 2008
> publisher is fully supported.
>
> Dan
>
> "Ben Thul" wrote in message
>
>
>
> > I'm not saying that it won't work. I'm saying that it's not
> > supported. So, if something breaks and you call MS to open a support
> > case, you'll either pay dearly for it or they'll say that you're out
> > of luck.
>
> > On May 18, 4:30 am, "Dan" wrote:
> >> I don't know about 2008, but that's not true for 2005. I have 2005 with
> >> transactional replication to a 2000 subscriber, and did up until 6 months
> >> ago have 2005 with transactional replication to a 7 subscriber and 2000
> >> replicating to a 7 subscriber (which had to be set up with a script as it
> >> wasn't possible with the GUI due to EM not supporting 2005 and SSMS not
> >> supporting 7).
>
> >> Dan
>
> >> "Ben Thul" wrote in message
>
> >>
>
> >> > Hmm... I don't think this topology is supported. Things downstream
> >> > have to be at least the version of those upstream. That is publisher
> >> > version <= distributor version <= subscriber version.
> >> > --
> >> > Ben
>
> >> > On May 5, 3:53 pm, Joseph wrote:
> >> >> 2008SP1 Publisher, Transactional, Queued
> >> >> 2000SP3 Subscriber
>
> >> >> When I publish the table, 2008 implements Automatic Identity Range
> >> >> Management by putting a identity range constraint on my SysID column.
>
> >> >> When applying the snapshot to the subscriber, after all the data is
> >> >> copied (a successful sync, by all accounts) this error occurs:
> >> >> There is already an object named' repl_identity_range_tran_1143675122'
> >> >> in the database (#2714).
>
> >> >> Why is it trying to create this constraint twice? Do I have any
> >> >> redress, other than turning off AIR management? I'm tempted to do
> >> >> that anyway, since only the subscriber will be altering the data.
>
> >> >> Thanks,
>
> >> >> Joseph >> Stay informed about: 2008->2000 Transactional: Bug? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 18, 2010
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 9:25 am
Post subject: Re: 2008->2000 Transactional: Bug? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
According to http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143241.aspx
replication between 2000, 2005, and 2008 is supported. There's even the
example note of a Distributor running 2008, Publisher on 2005, and
Subscriber on 2000. Using mixed versions just means that only the lowest
common features are available, but it's certainly a supported configuration.
It also points out for transactional replication that a subscriber needs to
be within 2 versions of the publisher - so 2000 subscribing from a 2008
publisher is fully supported.
Dan
"Ben Thul" wrote in message
> I'm not saying that it won't work. I'm saying that it's not
> supported. So, if something breaks and you call MS to open a support
> case, you'll either pay dearly for it or they'll say that you're out
> of luck.
>
> On May 18, 4:30 am, "Dan" wrote:
>> I don't know about 2008, but that's not true for 2005. I have 2005 with
>> transactional replication to a 2000 subscriber, and did up until 6 months
>> ago have 2005 with transactional replication to a 7 subscriber and 2000
>> replicating to a 7 subscriber (which had to be set up with a script as it
>> wasn't possible with the GUI due to EM not supporting 2005 and SSMS not
>> supporting 7).
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> "Ben Thul" wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>> > Hmm... I don't think this topology is supported. Things downstream
>> > have to be at least the version of those upstream. That is publisher
>> > version <= distributor version <= subscriber version.
>> > --
>> > Ben
>>
>> > On May 5, 3:53 pm, Joseph wrote:
>> >> 2008SP1 Publisher, Transactional, Queued
>> >> 2000SP3 Subscriber
>>
>> >> When I publish the table, 2008 implements Automatic Identity Range
>> >> Management by putting a identity range constraint on my SysID column.
>>
>> >> When applying the snapshot to the subscriber, after all the data is
>> >> copied (a successful sync, by all accounts) this error occurs:
>> >> There is already an object named' repl_identity_range_tran_1143675122'
>> >> in the database (#2714).
>>
>> >> Why is it trying to create this constraint twice? Do I have any
>> >> redress, other than turning off AIR management? I'm tempted to do
>> >> that anyway, since only the subscriber will be altering the data.
>>
>> >> Thanks,
>>
>> >> Joseph
> >> Stay informed about: 2008->2000 Transactional: Bug? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: May 18, 2010
Posts: 5
|
(Msg. 7) Posted: Tue May 18, 2010 12:25 pm
Post subject: Re: 2008->2000 Transactional: Bug? [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
It should work according to that article I posted, but you may have to
contact PSS to see if there is a known issue with this configuration, or to
report it as a bug.
Dan
"Joseph" wrote in message
> That's what I thought, but my painful experience these last couple of
> weeks is that their seems to be alot of exceptions, or that the
> supported configuration is very narrowly defined.
>
> I would expect to be able to use the front end to subscribe to my 2008
> pub without the error mentioned above...?
>
> I'm moving back to Merge, me thinks.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Joseph
>
> On May 18, 7:31 am, "Dan" wrote:
>> According tohttp://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms143241.aspx
>> replication between 2000, 2005, and 2008 is supported. There's even the
>> example note of a Distributor running 2008, Publisher on 2005, and
>> Subscriber on 2000. Using mixed versions just means that only the lowest
>> common features are available, but it's certainly a supported
>> configuration.
>> It also points out for transactional replication that a subscriber needs
>> to
>> be within 2 versions of the publisher - so 2000 subscribing from a 2008
>> publisher is fully supported.
>>
>> Dan
>>
>> "Ben Thul" wrote in message
>>
>>
>>
>> > I'm not saying that it won't work. I'm saying that it's not
>> > supported. So, if something breaks and you call MS to open a support
>> > case, you'll either pay dearly for it or they'll say that you're out
>> > of luck.
>>
>> > On May 18, 4:30 am, "Dan" wrote:
>> >> I don't know about 2008, but that's not true for 2005. I have 2005
>> >> with
>> >> transactional replication to a 2000 subscriber, and did up until 6
>> >> months
>> >> ago have 2005 with transactional replication to a 7 subscriber and
>> >> 2000
>> >> replicating to a 7 subscriber (which had to be set up with a script as
>> >> it
>> >> wasn't possible with the GUI due to EM not supporting 2005 and SSMS
>> >> not
>> >> supporting 7).
>>
>> >> Dan
>>
>> >> "Ben Thul" wrote in message
>>
>> >>
>>
>> >> > Hmm... I don't think this topology is supported. Things downstream
>> >> > have to be at least the version of those upstream. That is
>> >> > publisher
>> >> > version <= distributor version <= subscriber version.
>> >> > --
>> >> > Ben
>>
>> >> > On May 5, 3:53 pm, Joseph wrote:
>> >> >> 2008SP1 Publisher, Transactional, Queued
>> >> >> 2000SP3 Subscriber
>>
>> >> >> When I publish the table, 2008 implements Automatic Identity Range
>> >> >> Management by putting a identity range constraint on my SysID
>> >> >> column.
>>
>> >> >> When applying the snapshot to the subscriber, after all the data is
>> >> >> copied (a successful sync, by all accounts) this error occurs:
>> >> >> There is already an object named'
>> >> >> repl_identity_range_tran_1143675122'
>> >> >> in the database (#2714).
>>
>> >> >> Why is it trying to create this constraint twice? Do I have any
>> >> >> redress, other than turning off AIR management? I'm tempted to do
>> >> >> that anyway, since only the subscriber will be altering the data.
>>
>> >> >> Thanks,
>>
>> >> >> Joseph
> >> Stay informed about: 2008->2000 Transactional: Bug? |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You can edit your posts in this forum
You can delete your posts in this forum
You can vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
