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

Re: Interesting issue happening in a 80 to 90 converted DB

Subject: Re: Interesting issue happening in a 80 to 90 converted DB
From: "Diane Larsen [MSFT]"
Date: Wed, 30 Aug 2006 10:56:37 -0700
Newsgroups: microsoft.public.sqlserver.notificationsvcs
Do you have any more information about the type of change and the exact 
error message? Also, have you run any DBCC commands to check the database?

There are several things that are allowed in 80 mode but not in 90 mode. The 
"sp_dbcmptlevel" topic lists the changes, as does the SQL Server Upgrade 
Advisor documentation.

-- 
Diane Larsen [MSFT]
SQL Server User Education

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Use of included script samples are subject to the terms specified at
http://www.microsoft.com/info/cpyright.htm.


"SSirica" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> Let me layout the scenario.  I'm writing a windows service that will 
> monitor
> a a SQL Database via SQL Query Notification Service.  Nothing out of the
> ordinary there.  All that is working fine.  Here where it gets 
> interesting.
> I'm running SQL Server 2005.  Most of the database have been upgraded from
> SQL 2000, so they start with the compatibility level set to 80.  I took 
> one
> of these databases and flipped the compatibility level to 90 so I could 
> get
> the Notification Service running.  Everything starts fine and the app 
> starts
> to monitor a table, but if I try to make a change to the data of the table
> being monitored I get an access violation error.  To make sure the issue
> wasn't with my processes I created a fresh SQL 2005 Database with the same
> structure as the SQL 2000 originated database.  Inserted some data, 
> started
> the monitoring process, tried to make a data change, and everything worked
> perfect.  The change got committed and the monitoring process got a
> notification that something happened.
>
> What would be missing from the upgraded database that a fresh database 
> would
> have?
>
> Thanks
> Steve
> 



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