Error in setting up SQL 2000 replication.

underprocessableThis seems to be a warning telling you that you could run into a problem if
your subscribers are less than SQL 2000. From what it says if your
subscribers are SQL 7 you will need to reinitialize, if they are SQL2000 you
are ok. Does this new table have a timestamp col on it?
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Joe D" <jkdriscoll@.qg.com> wrote in message
news:drtu8d$2mil$1@.sxnews1.qg.com...
> Hi all,
> Ran into this odd error and I'd like to get some feed back.
> First things first, both the publisher and subscriber are SQL2000 with
> SP3A. The inital replication was setup using a batch file that one of our
> DBAs wrote. The other day I disovered that a table in the database was not
> being published. There where no errors generated during the setup phase.
> When I tried to use the Wizard to add the table to the database
> publication, this window popped up:
>
> I was told by one of the developers that this application orginally used
> Access and then was migrated to SQL 7.0. We've since upgrade to SQL 2000.
> As far as I know, replication was never used in SQL7.0. It's only be used
> in the past couple of years and just very recently for this database in
> question.
> Any thoughts about this? Is there some embedded meta data that in a system
> table that still has hooks to pre SQL 2000?
> TIA,
> Joe D.
>
|||"Joe D" <jkdriscoll@.qg.com> wrote in message
news:drtu8d$2mil$1@.sxnews1.qg.com...
> Hi all,
> Ran into this odd error and I'd like to get some feed back.
> First things first, both the publisher and subscriber are SQL2000 with
> SP3A. The inital replication was setup using a batch file that one of our
> DBAs wrote. The other day I disovered that a table in the database was not
> being published. There where no errors generated during the setup phase.
> When I tried to use the Wizard to add the table to the database
> publication, this window popped up:
>
> I was told by one of the developers that this application orginally used
> Access and then was migrated to SQL 7.0. We've since upgrade to SQL 2000.
> As far as I know, replication was never used in SQL7.0. It's only be used
> in the past couple of years and just very recently for this database in
> question.
> Any thoughts about this? Is there some embedded meta data that in a system
> table that still has hooks to pre SQL 2000?
> TIA,
> Joe D.
>
|||Joe,
this standard warning will occur if you add a table to a publication created
in SQL Server 2000 - ie the fact that you were using Access and SQL Server
7.0 is a red herring.
Cheers,
Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
(recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
|||Hi,
Thanks for the reply. To answer your question, no - there is no
timestamp col in the table.
Joe
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:eCGagfGKGHA.3944@.tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
> This seems to be a warning telling you that you could run into a problem
> if your subscribers are less than SQL 2000. From what it says if your
> subscribers are SQL 7 you will need to reinitialize, if they are SQL2000
> you are ok. Does this new table have a timestamp col on it?
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
> Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
> http://www.indexserverfaq.com
> "Joe D" <jkdriscoll@.qg.com> wrote in message
> news:drtu8d$2mil$1@.sxnews1.qg.com...
>
|||Paul,
Thanks for the information. That's one rabbit trail I won't have to go
down, trying to figure why this table got missed in the replication setup
process.
Joe
"Paul Ibison" <Paul.Ibison@.Pygmalion.Com> wrote in message
news:uuEclIKKGHA.1424@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Joe,
> this standard warning will occur if you add a table to a publication
> created in SQL Server 2000 - ie the fact that you were using Access and
> SQL Server 7.0 is a red herring.
> Cheers,
> Paul Ibison SQL Server MVP, www.replicationanswers.com
> (recommended sql server 2000 replication book:
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602p.html)
>
|||Just in case anyone cares, I've figured out why this one table wasn't being
added to the publication during replication setup. Seems our custom code
filters out any tables that start with sys. The table in question starts
with SYS. It is a user table and not a system table.
As Paul pointed out, the pop message I got was just a 'Red Herring'.
Joe D.
"Joe D" <jkdriscoll@.qg.com> wrote in message
news:drtu8d$2mil$1@.sxnews1.qg.com...
> Hi all,
> Ran into this odd error and I'd like to get some feed back.
> First things first, both the publisher and subscriber are SQL2000 with
> SP3A. The inital replication was setup using a batch file that one of our
> DBAs wrote. The other day I disovered that a table in the database was not
> being published. There where no errors generated during the setup phase.
> When I tried to use the Wizard to add the table to the database
> publication, this window popped up:
>
> I was told by one of the developers that this application orginally used
> Access and then was migrated to SQL 7.0. We've since upgrade to SQL 2000.
> As far as I know, replication was never used in SQL7.0. It's only be used
> in the past couple of years and just very recently for this database in
> question.
> Any thoughts about this? Is there some embedded meta data that in a system
> table that still has hooks to pre SQL 2000?
> TIA,
> Joe D.
>