microsoft.public.sqlserver.notificationsvcs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: NS Logic for Enabled Users

Subject: Re: NS Logic for Enabled Users
From: "Vince Sefcik"
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 07:57:15 -0800
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.notificationsvcs
Some additional information on this issue:

As I noted in my previous post, this issue (subscribers receiving 
notifications even though their Enabled is False in the instance table 
NSSubscribers) came up in a scheduled subscription.  This subscription runs 
at 11:00:00 AM (UTC) every day.  Those subscribers with Enabled = False that 
did receive notifications on 1/4/2006 at 11:00:00 AM did not receive 
notifications on 1/5/2006 at 11:00:00 AM.  So, the notifications that were 
sent when they shouldn't have been sent were sent only once.  Perhaps 
something was persisted in memory that got cleaned out after a while?

"Vince Sefcik" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
news:[email protected]
>I just ran into this same issue.  After converting a version 2.0 
>application to SQL Server 2005, I imported a list of subscribers and 
>subscriptions (using the 2005 API).  I set Enabled to False for all 
>Subscribers except one (my account), yet three others received 
>notifications.
>
> The instance table NSSubscribers column has a datetime setting of 1/3/2006 
> 6:19 PM with Enabled = False for all Subscribers except me, yet the 
> application table NS...Notifications has entires for those who received 
> notifications and column SentTime has a datetime of 1/4/2006 11:01 AM. 
> This is a scheduled notification.
>
> "Andy Wilbourn" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
> news:[email protected]
>>I have not had enough time to retest, we just changed our Match query to 
>>join to the subscribers table and put the where enabled in our join.
>>
>> Looking at the view NS gives you it will not work. I am wondering if I 
>> was just imagining that it worked before, but you seem to give me a 
>> sanity check by your thinking it should work.
>>
>> "Joe Webb" <[email protected]> wrote in message 
>> news:[email protected]
>>> I'll see if I can repro - but I'm going to be out of town and largely
>>> out of commission for the next 2 weeks or so. If you discover
>>> something, would you post your findings?
>>>
>>> Thanks!
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Joe Webb
>>> SQL Server MVP
>>> http://www.sqlns.com
>>>
>>>
>>> ~~~
>>> Get up to speed quickly with SQLNS
>>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0972688811
>>>
>>> I support PASS, the Professional Association for SQL Server.
>>> (www.sqlpass.org)
>>>
>>> On Mon, 5 Dec 2005 06:49:25 -0500, "Andy Wilbourn"
>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>I looked at the view and it is only looking at my subscriptions table 
>>>>where
>>>>Enabled = 1. I will try to see if I can find what we did with prior 
>>>>beta's
>>>>to get it to work, or may just submit as a bug if warranted.
>>>>
>>>>Thanks for the help Joe.
>>>>
>>>>"Andy Wilbourn" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>news:OJVtu$Y%[email protected]
>>>>> Yes I am. I will test it one more time in our QA environment, but our 
>>>>> DEV
>>>>> it is not working. We went through and did an update to the subscriber
>>>>> table to set all disabled, we also tried using the NS API to do the 
>>>>> same,
>>>>> but our subscriptions were still coming back. I guess I can look at 
>>>>> the
>>>>> view in our application DB to see what the code is for ACTIVE
>>>>> subscriptions.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not sure if Shyam is monitoring this group anymore, he does not 
>>>>> have
>>>>> a primary focus of NS. Hopefully that does not get me in trouble, 
>>>>> since I
>>>>> don't know if that is common knowledge. We went to Redmond and fully
>>>>> stress tested our solution for the SQL 2005, but did not test this 
>>>>> aspect.
>>>>> It came up when we were wanting to stress another part of our solution 
>>>>> in
>>>>> house, but did not want to generate alerts to all our test 
>>>>> subscribers. To
>>>>> our surprise we did generate millions of alerts.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Joe Webb" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>>> news:[email protected]
>>>>>> Hi Andy -
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your understanding of the Subscriber.Enabled property is correct. If
>>>>>> the property is set to true, the subscriber's subscriptions are
>>>>>> candidates for the matching rules and can generate notifications. If
>>>>>> the property is set to false, the subscriptions associated with the
>>>>>> disabled subscriber will not produce notifications.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You are seeing something contrary to this in RTM?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Joe Webb
>>>>>> SQL Server MVP
>>>>>> http://www.sqlns.com
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ~~~
>>>>>> Get up to speed quickly with SQLNS
>>>>>> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0972688811
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I support PASS, the Professional Association for SQL Server.
>>>>>> (www.sqlpass.org)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 2 Dec 2005 12:04:54 -0500, "Andy Wilbourn"
>>>>>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I thought I had tested and validated that if a Subscriber is 
>>>>>>>disabled,
>>>>>>>then
>>>>>>>none of their subscriptions would be matched without having to 
>>>>>>>disable
>>>>>>>the
>>>>>>>subscription.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>I am using SQL 2005 NS. I believe we tested this on June CTP and it 
>>>>>>>was
>>>>>>>working, but now with RTM it is not.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Can someone tell what is supposed to happen?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>
>>
>
> 



<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>