Skip to content

Settings and activity

8 results found

  1. 480 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    under review  ·  Kendra responded

    Thank you everyone for your comments and votes on this over the years. While I don’t have a 100% full resolution for this suggestion, I can sum up our current recommendations here. Continued feedback is very welcome.

    Our current recommendation is to use the post-deployment script feature of SQL Source Control (released in V6.3) to manage SQL Server Agent jobs.

    An example script for this is here: https://documentation.red-gate.com/soc/common-tasks/working-with-pre-post-deployment-scripts/create-sql-server-agent-job

    As some commenters in this thread have alluded to, it is possible (and sometimes very common) for SQL Agent jobs to have steps that touch multiple databases on a single SQL Server Instance. For this reason, some customers prefer to create a separate database for instance-level management and objects (sometimes named DBA or similar) and choose to manage things like linked servers and SQL Agent jobs with the post-script associated with that database.

    This separate-database architecture also makes sense if the jobs…

    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Phil Helmer commented  · 

    We do the same as what Pete Cousins described. It works pretty well for us in terms of saving the job, but it doesn't help us with deployment. It would seem that controlling the jobs more tightly to the databases in SVN would make it more likely that the tools (compare or deployment manager) could deploy those more easily than a series of manual script executions.

    Phil Helmer supported this idea  · 
  2. 150 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    3 comments  ·  SQL Search  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Phil Helmer supported this idea  · 
  3. 210 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Phil Helmer supported this idea  · 
  4. 341 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    7 comments  ·  SQL Search  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Phil Helmer supported this idea  · 
  5. 193 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    9 comments  ·  SQL Search  ·  Admin →
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Phil Helmer supported this idea  · 
  6. 131 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Phil Helmer supported this idea  · 
  7. 636 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    under review  ·  Kendra responded

    Hi everyone. I have merged some User Voice items on this topic of “filtered” static data, as there was significant overlap. I want to share our current guidance on handling scenarios where you need to version a subset of the columns and/or rows in the table.

    With SQL Source control, the best option at this point is to use a post-deployment script for this purpose.

    SQL Source Control introduced pre- and post- scripts in v6.3.

    A post-deployment script gives you a good amount of flexibility over exactly which rows or columns of data you want to include in your project. Example post-deployment scripts for static data are here: https://documentation.red-gate.com/soc7/common-tasks/working-with-pre-post-deployment-scripts/static-data

    If you make heavy use of Static Data, we have stronger support for this in SQL Change Automation.

    SQL Change Automation:

    • Supports column filtered static data tables in the SCA plugin in SSMS
    • Supports multiple post-deployment scripts, in case there is…
    Phil Helmer supported this idea  · 
    An error occurred while saving the comment
    Phil Helmer commented  · 

    Is there any update on this? We are having to add a lot of steps to our process because this feature is missing. Granted, SDC can do the work, but now we are forking our work by tool (1 method for schema, 1 for data) instead of usage (1 method for the "always like this" items and another for the "where are we deploying it?" items).

  8. 215 votes
    Vote

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    You have left! (?) (thinking…)
    How important is this to you?

    We're glad you're here

    Please sign in to leave feedback

    Signed in as (Sign out)
    Phil Helmer supported this idea  ·