Support Multiple instances of SSMS
It would be really handy to support mulitple instances of SSMS, especially for multi-monitor people.
anonymous
shared this idea
We are currently reviewing how this will work. I’ll be sending you an email to get a better understanding of how you work with multiple SSMS instances.
28 comments
-
kkam
commented
I work in a team of developers. All of us tend to have multiple instances of SSMS open for various reasons The abiltiy to have source control available in all instances would definitely be helpful.
-
Linda Leslie
commented
I also use multple monitors to be able to keep up both environements at the same time on different monitors
-
Linda Leslie
commented
I use multiple instances of SSMS as we have 2 domains and frequently use different SSMS to prevent running script on Production instead of our test environment. I also connect to the 2nd domain in a second instance of SSMS as they are 2008 R2 and most and the servers in the local domain are 2005 so I use the different versions... I know I could connect to both with the new SSMS but I still prefer to use separate instances of SSMS for the different environments, even if it's the same tool
-
Max
commented
This happenned to me after SSMS crashed.
When I relaunched it, SQL Source Control tab kept telling me that.
Even if I closed it and re launched.I believe this happenned because the crashed one remained in my computer's proccess and was conflicting with SQL Source Control Tab
-
lyle keeton
commented
David, Yes we want to have our cake and eat it too!
-
Adam Bean
commented
I share the same problem quite regularly as well. Fix is to close down and re-open SSMS.
-
Bob Frasca
commented
I get this error after closing SSMS and then reopening it. I even stopped and started the SQL Server and I'm still getting it. (SQL Server 2012)
-
Michael Richardson
commented
I also agree with the convenience of multi-instance support but more importantly, if it's not going to be supported, related-bugs need to be squashed (like SQL Compare opening a new instance of SSMS and causing confusion).
ADMIN: Connecting to multiple servers in one instance isn't the same as having two instances of SSMS open (though I do see that many people here don't appear to realize they can connect to more than one server instance per SSMS instance). Even the ability to break windows out of SSMS isn't nearly as clean has having fully independent SSMS instances.
I run with 4 monitors and as cheap as they are these days, I'm willing to bet that single-monitor developers that fit your target audience are fairly uncommon or at least the rest of us make up a significant user-base.
-
AdminDavid Atkinson
(Admin, Red Gate)
commented
@David - as far as I'm aware there were some architectural issues that would have been expensive to address. In the early stages of the tool we were unsure what the appetite would be for database source control so we decided to release with the limitation. Now that it's clear that there's a strong demand, we should consider trying to address this, but as ever it's just one of many valid feature requests on our backlog!
-
David Sumlin
commented
This seems like a very odd omission. What's the rationale behind this?
-
AdminDavid Atkinson
(Admin, Red Gate)
commented
I can't reproduce this. I've opened SSMS(1) and SSMS(2). SSMS(1) has the working SQL Source Control. I close SSMS(2) and I can successfully commit changes with SSMS(1). Or are you hoping that the disabled one enables itself when it's the only one remaining?
-
Anonymous
commented
Having two (or more) ssms windows open is a constant need for me. It especially helps keep production changes separate from development changes.
-
zacuke
commented
This would be extremely useful, as we all have traditionally worked with multiple SSMS windows open, and now we have had to alter our behavior to conform to SQL Source Control requirement.
-
JoeA
commented
A must for me too. I always have multiple projects open (I'm a shared service :-). Some are in SSC some aren't, so I run into Jordan's probelm all the time, when I close the magic SSMS instance with SSC running in it.
-
Jordan
commented
This is a must for me as well. And just to be clear, when I close down other instances of SSMS and only have one, SSC still thinks I have multiple instances open, so I have to close every instance just to get it to refresh itself and work with the one instance.
-
James F
commented
I'd like to see this feature. It's not that you can't have one SSMS instance connect to multiple servers, you can. However from a "safety" perspective I try to have different servers in different instances so that I don't accidently modify one server by executing commands in one instance. It's also nice to organize work by having different projects in different windows.
-
BlueCollarCritic
commented
At a minimum you shoudl have some way to force SSC to re-check that you really do have multiple SSMS instances open before it refuses to load because I have only one open and it keeps telling me I have multiple. I now must close everything I have open so I can close all instances of SSMS and then re-launch SSMS just so SSC will recognize that only 1 copy is truely open.
-
Sara A
commented
This would be neat as myself and most of my team members tend to use several instances of SSMS.
-
kkam
commented
I have to second HLee. This feature is a must for us to be able to proceed. We follow the same practices as HLee explained....different instances of SSMS to keep it straight which server we are working on. It is rare for me to only have one instance open at a time.
-
Joshua Drake
commented
In the same vein as JoeFJ:
Personally I believe that simply adding either an additional check at the time when I choose Open from Object Explorer or choose SQL Source Control from the Tools menu, or that the check for running instances be moved to that point, instead of at Query Analyzer start. May do the trick.
