38 results found

1. Constraints against other schemas

   Include constraints that's against other schemas

   4 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

2. Schema Compare Report - identical objects should be filtered too

   When generating a schema compare report there is the option to "Also include identical objects". When you choose that you get again ALL object types of identical objects. I want to be able to include only the identical objects of the filtered object type, which is possible for differing objects via choosing "Objects selected for deploment". I think objects excluded by filter should also be excluded in the report, no matter what.

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

3. wildcard

   Please add advanced filtering in Schema Compare. E.g. wildcard or regex matches to only show objects matching a certain criteria.

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

4. Comparison Options: Add a Ignore option for Sequence Increment By

   Sometimes in non-PROD environmens vs prod we may want to have different increment by clauses on sequences.

   e.g. increment by 3 on non-Prod but increment by 1 on Prod

   Would be be nice to be able to ignore differences in the increment by clause as an ignore options (similar to the ignore option for sequence current value)

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

5. Schema Compare Report -silly to have separate images folder for each interactive html report

   When using the interactive html report currently a new folder for each new report is generated containing the exact same images. There should just be a general images folder by all reports. Alternatively there should also be an option to use images from redgate website remotely. This would make it easier to send out differences reports as e-mail.

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

6. I have check ignore schema in object comparison, however, Triggers still show as changed due to schema. Is this a bug or intentional?

   The triggers in my database show that the schema is there when looking at the create sql via sql developer.
   I have checked to ignore schema's in object comparison.
   The source control for oracle sql does not have the schema in it.
   Consequently the tool shows all triggers that have the schema as changes.

   Shouldn't these be avoided due to checking of schema in edit comparison options...?

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   0 comments  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

7. hide

   Add option to filter out object that EQUAL.
   In other words - show only differences/all/etc.
   
   Add ability to go Next Difference (when usig show all)

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

8. Include policy-comparison for tables

   We are using Virtual Private Database on some schemas. These profiles are not included in current comparison.

   Please include this. :-)

   3 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

9. Filter objects by created date

   I have many different objects in my schemas, but i need to syncronize only objects created within last hours or day. It would be very nice to optionally filter object after a creatino date (or the objects that have creaing date).

   I will put a new suggestion about a complete custopm filter (a string edited by user that is added to the where clause of SOCO)

   2 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

   You have left! (?) (thinking…)
   1 comment  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
   How important is this to you?

   Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

10. Optional, exclude by default dependent (affected) objects from deploy

    In 99% of cases i need NOT to deploy affected objects. I do small, incremental deploys.

    So i need an option so that SOCO, at deploy, will uncheck be default the checkbox "Deploy all affected objects" and to uncheck all the items in the affacted items list.

    There are cases when, if I forget to uncheck "Deploy all affected objects."and to uncheck "objects affected" I will put some productions down.

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

11. Synonym Ignore bug

    When entering ignore mask into PublicSynonym section, the ignore does not work - all public synonyms are still compared. But if the same ignore mask is entered into Synonym section, public synonyms are affected.

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

12. Synonym Handling w/ "Exclude Schema Names" option Enabled

    With the “Exclude Schema Names” option enabled, SCO identifies false-positive mismatches for public synonyms.

    In Oracle public synonym DDL w/o owner specified defaults the object owner to current user.

    CREATE PUBLIC SYNONYM foo_bar FOR bar
    /

    SELECT *
    FROM allsynonyms
    WHERE synonymname = 'FOO_BAR'
    /

    SCO happily generates the Public synonym DDL w/o the owner specified (and it can be executed as such). However, on subsequent comparisons the underlying object’s qualified name is used and the public synonyms are all identified as being different.
    e.g. CREATE OR REPLACE PUBLIC SYNONYM foobar FOR myschema.bar vs. CREATE OR REPLACE PUBLIC SYNONYM foo_bar FOR bar

    This behavior feels like a bug.

    Suggesting a fix:

    Option 1
    - Ignore the current schema owner value (source / target side) if the “Exclude Schema Names” option is selected and the target has no (or a different) owner on the target-side DDL
    (This option seems more straightforward, but the implicit ambiguity could be considered a bit risky – esp. since the SCO generated public synonym DDL uses CREATE OR REPLACE PUBLIC SYNONYM)

    Option 2
    - One could also make the argument that public synonyms are a bit of a special case – because they are PUBLIC / DB instance wide.
    Perhaps the default behavior ought to be for developers to be specific about the public synonym object ownership. Taking this approach, it may make sense to have a special configuration setting specific to excluding the schema name for the public synonym underlying object ownership (i.e. this would support moving objects cross schema while maintaining the public synonym – e.g. myschemav1 to myschemav2).

    Additional considerations for either solution:
    - Synonyms (public or private) are a bit of a special case because you can declare synonyms for another user’s objects.
    - Public synonyms are even more of a special case because there is a single instance of the synonym name which is owned by PUBLIC – i.e. there is only one source of truth for the PUBLIC synonym at any point in time.
    - SCO's use of the "OR REPLACE" caluse for PUBLIC (global) synonyms is potentially problematic as this can result in an unintentional repointing of the object a synonym points to (or evrn pointing a public synonym to a non-existant object) -- w/o warning!
    -- Omitting the "OR REPLACE" clause would result in an error if the PUBLIC synonym already existed
    - Also consider the deployment models:
    -- Running deployments as SYSTEM (or an execution / super-user account w/ multi-schema – CREATE ANY * - privs)
    --- in this case you will most certainly want / need to specify a qualified schema owner for nearly every type of object including synonyms (public or private).
    -- Running deployments where the user doing the deployment is the object owner (i.e. not using SYSTEM or a multi-schema privileged user)
    --- in this case the need to explicitly identify the object owner is somewhat lessend (assuming current user / deployer owne the object referenced by the synonym), but only somewhat as a synonym can be declared for another schema's objects

    Here are some examples:

    If deployment user is:
    - “SCHEMA1”
    -- CREATE OR REPLACE PUBLIC SYNONYM foobar FOR bar (is FOR SCHEMA1.bar - not SYSTEM.bar)
    - “SCHEMA2”
    -- CREATE OR REPLACE PUBLIC SYNONYM foobar FOR bar (is FOR SCHEMA2.bar - not SYSTEM.bar)

    • “SCHEMA1”
      -- CREATE OR REPLACE PUBLIC SYNONYM foobar FOR SCHEMA_2.bar (schema owner is qualified; this is allowed – as I can create a public synonym for another user’s objects)
      --- HOWEVER -- this is where the addition of the OR REPLACE clause is actually a bit dangerous, because I can effectively “hi-jack” / repoint a public synonym w/o warning
      --- Using only the CREATE PUBLIC SYNONYM… I’d get an error alerting me that the name was already in use and I’d need to resolve that conflict before continuing
      -- May be a good idea to force an explicit drop and re-create – or at least make the inclusion of “ OR REPLACE” clause and optional behavior for the public synonyms?

    • “SYSTEM” (or multi-schema privileged user)
      -- CREATE OR REPLACE PUBLIC SYNONYM foobar FOR <schemaowner>.bar (will most certainly require a schema owner name, as it is not a good practice to set-up your objects under the SYSTEM user. Likewise you wouldn’t want your deployment user account to be the designated object owner of any unqualified object names the public synonyms point to)
      (In this case there is even a greater risk of unqualified object names resulting in a public synonym that points to a non-existant objects -- e.g. SYSTEM.bar)

    In Summary:
    - Probably best practice to encourage the use of qualified object names for synonyms (public or private)
    - May want to option toggle the use of the OR REPLACE clause for public synonyms
    -- safest to default to forcing a drop / recreate of a public synonym if the name is already in use
    -- some use cases may want to leverage the OR REPLACE clause (see next item), but that may be more of be a special use case (i.e. an override of default behavior)
    - There may be some use cases where users intentionally want to omit the schema name of the underlying object, to facilitate re-pointing the underlying object a public synonym resolves to

    With the “Exclude Schema Names” option enabled, SCO identifies false-positive mismatches for public synonyms.

    In Oracle public synonym DDL w/o owner specified defaults the object owner to current user.

    CREATE PUBLIC SYNONYM foo_bar FOR bar
    /

    SELECT *
    FROM allsynonyms
    WHERE synonymname = 'FOO_BAR'
    /

    SCO happily generates the Public synonym DDL w/o the owner specified (and it can be executed as such). However, on subsequent comparisons the underlying object’s qualified name is used and the public synonyms are all identified as being different.
    e.g. CREATE OR REPLACE PUBLIC SYNONYM foobar FOR myschema.bar vs. CREATE OR… more

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

13. Support object tables

    CREATE TABE FOO of BAR

    If I create a table (FOO) of an object type (BAR), this table is not picked up by schema compare. This is probably because it's not listed in USERTABLES, but in USEROBJECT_TABLES.

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

14. Grants are not detected correctly when logged in as proxy user.

    Please support proxy users. They allow people to impersonate another user which is useful for all kinds of purposes regarding security and auditing.
    So, I got this user called MyUserName which can act as a proxy user for OurSchema. To log in, I use MyUserName[OurSchema] as the username (and my own password). Then I can make modifications to OurSchema and basically work as if I'm logged in as OurSchema.
    This works well in any tool. In Schema Compare it almost works, but there seems to be an issue with the grants. The grants are not detected, so when I run SC with a proxy user, I suddenly get about 3000 differences.

    Please support proxy users. They allow people to impersonate another user which is useful for all kinds of purposes regarding security and auditing.
    So, I got this user called MyUserName which can act as a proxy user for OurSchema. To log in, I use MyUserName[OurSchema] as the username (and my own password). Then I can make modifications to OurSchema and basically work as if I'm logged in as OurSchema.
    This works well in any tool. In Schema Compare it almost works, but there seems to be an issue with the grants. The grants are not detected, so when I run… more

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    1 comment  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

15. Add support for ANALYTIC VIEWS objects

    Currently the Schema compare for ORACLE doesnt support the below objects.
    1. ATTRIBUTE DIMENSION
    2. HIERARCHY
    3. ANALYTIC VIEW

    These have been available since Oracle12c. It would be nice for redgate to support all the Oracle object types from the latest database versions.

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

16. more features to add in interactive report html

    Hi, i have a question about interactive html report file. Maybe it is possible to add buttons in it like in schema compare for jumping between changes, because now its not really comfortable to navigate, when you have to scroll and find one change on big file. And finally you find that there is the difference only on space or tab. Also maybe it is possible to have alignment of code not on left side, but like in database - that spaces, tabs wouldn't be removed.

    Here is the link where i got answered to this question. But he just said to register this question here:

    https://forum.red-gate.com/discussion/comment/168797#Comment_168797

    Hi, i have a question about interactive html report file. Maybe it is possible to add buttons in it like in schema compare for jumping between changes, because now its not really comfortable to navigate, when you have to scroll and find one change on big file. And finally you find that there is the difference only on space or tab. Also maybe it is possible to have alignment of code not on left side, but like in database - that spaces, tabs wouldn't be removed.

    Here is the link where i got answered to this question. But he just… more

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

17. Option ILM POLICY

    Help, please, I compare tables but do not see ILM POLICY.
    The ILM POLICY option is enabled.

    Script:
    CREATE TABLE salesado
    (PRODID NUMBER NOT NULL,
    CUSTID NUMBER NOT NULL,
    TIMEID DATE NOT NULL,
    CHANNELID NUMBER NOT NULL,
    PROMOID NUMBER NOT NULL,
    QUANTITYSOLD NUMBER(10,2) NOT NULL,
    AMOUNTSOLD NUMBER(10,2) NOT NULL)
    PARTITION BY RANGE (timeid)
    ( PARTITION salesq12012 VALUES LESS THAN (TODATE('01-APR-2012','dd-MON-yyyy')),
    PARTITION salesq22012 VALUES LESS THAN (TODATE('01-JUL-2012','dd-MON-yyyy')),
    PARTITION salesq32012 VALUES LESS THAN (TODATE('01-OCT-2012','dd-MON-yyyy')),
    PARTITION salesq42012 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('01-JAN-2013','dd-MON-yyyy'))
    );

    ALTER TABLE salesado MODIFY PARTITION salesq1_2012
    ILM ADD POLICY ROW STORE COMPRESS ADVANCED ROW
    AFTER 30 DAYS OF NO MODIFICATION;
    COMMIT;

    ALTER TABLE salesado MODIFY PARTITION salesq2_2012
    ILM ADD POLICY ROW STORE COMPRESS ADVANCED SEGMENT
    AFTER 3 MONTHS OF NO MODIFICATION;
    COMMIT;

    ALTER TABLE salesado MODIFY PARTITION salesq3_2012
    ILM ADD POLICY ROW STORE COMPRESS ADVANCED GROUP
    AFTER 6 MONTHS OF NO MODIFICATION;
    COMMIT;

    Help, please, I compare tables but do not see ILM POLICY.
    The ILM POLICY option is enabled.

    Script:
    CREATE TABLE salesado
    (PRODID NUMBER NOT NULL,
    CUSTID NUMBER NOT NULL,
    TIMEID DATE NOT NULL,
    CHANNELID NUMBER NOT NULL,
    PROMOID NUMBER NOT NULL,
    QUANTITYSOLD NUMBER(10,2) NOT NULL,
    AMOUNTSOLD NUMBER(10,2) NOT NULL)
    PARTITION BY RANGE (timeid)
    ( PARTITION salesq12012 VALUES LESS THAN (TODATE('01-APR-2012','dd-MON-yyyy')),
    PARTITION salesq22012 VALUES LESS THAN (TODATE('01-JUL-2012','dd-MON-yyyy')),
    PARTITION salesq32012 VALUES LESS THAN (TODATE('01-OCT-2012','dd-MON-yyyy')),
    PARTITION salesq42012 VALUES LESS THAN (TO_DATE('01-JAN-2013','dd-MON-yyyy'))
    );

    ALTER… more

    •  

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

18. Ignore SQL script files that fail to parse

    Add an option to ignore SQL files that fail to parse when the target is a Scripts Folder.

    I would like this, such that the tool can do autonomous exports without it crashing if the target contains valid but unsupported SQL like
    "DROP VIEW viewname
    CREATE OR REPLACE viewname"

    1 vote

    Vote Vote Vote

    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close

    1 vote 2 votes 3 votes Remove votes

    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    0 comments  ·  Schema Compare  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    Not at all You must login first! Important You must login first! Critical You must login first!

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)

    Close

    Close