Settings and activity

4 results found

1. Create new Setting to only enclose SQL Keywords in square brackets

   52 votes

   Vote Vote Vote

   We're glad you're here

   Please sign in to leave feedback

   Signed in as (Sign out)

   Close

   Close

   Vote

   We’ll send you updates on this idea

   2 comments  ·  SQL Prompt » Format SQL  ·  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
   An error occurred while saving the comment
   Jamie Burns commented  ·  February 25, 2019  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…

   Yep, this would be really useful. At the moment, it seems we've just got the option to have square brackets around nothing, or everything.

   Save Submitting...
   Jamie Burns supported this idea  ·  February 25, 2019

2. Make SQL Data Easier to Merge (Static Data)

   530 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…)
   37 comments  ·  SQL Source Control » Static Data  ·  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
   under review  ·  Kendra responded

   Thanks for this suggestion and for the many comments and upvotes. I realize that this is a pain point.

   I have a few shorter-term workarounds to summarize as well as some information on the longer roadmap in this update. I know these shorter-term workarounds aren’t perfect (I summarize the pros and cons), but I’m posting them as they may help a few folks.

   Workaround 1) When data changes to static data need to be made, use a “relink the table” pattern
   One can “cleanly rescript” a static data table in SQL Source Control by:

   • Unlinking the static data table
   • Committing
   • Relinking the static data table
   • Committing

   Pro: This works with the GUI and requires no special knowledge or comfort with TSQL. This may help folks with just a few static data tables.
   Con: This requires extra steps and results in extra commits in the history, which I realize can be annoying, particularly if the team doesn’t squash commit history when merging or do similar things.

   Workaround 2) Use a post-deployment script to manage static data tables instead of linking them
   Another option is to not use the “link static data tables” feature at all, and instead manage the static data table yourself with a custom script.

   I’ve added a code sample called “post-deployment script to manage static data for a table with an identity column” into our reference on post-deployment scripts: https://documentation.red-gate.com/soc7/common-tasks/working-with-pre-post-deployment-scripts/static-data

   Pro: This gives you complete control over the TSQL.

   Con: Your post-deployment script might become quite complex and create its own issue in merge conflicts, depending on how many static data tables you have and whether you are using the post-deployment script for other things.

   An alternate approach using SQL Change Automation
   If customers have licenses for SQL Change Automation, the SCA Migrations approach does not have this issue and has additional features for flexibility with static data:

   • Since migrations only script out the data which has changed, this scripting issue of the entire table doesn’t occur in SCA – it only ever needs to generate commands for what has been modified since the last migration
   • Supports column filtered static data tables in the SCA plugin in SSMS
   • Supports multiple post-deployment scripts, in case there is a preference to manage static data tables in dedicated post-deployment scripts
   • Allows approaches like bulk loading larger static data tables by supporting SQLCMD variables in migration and post-deployment scripts

   If there are other use cases where a migrations approach would add value to the team – such as easily being able to run data modification statements as part of deployments, or being able to customize the TSQL for schema changes – then changing from SQL Source Control to SQL Change Automation might make sense.

   Roadmap
   I’ve chatted with our engineering teams and Redgate does have the desire to better support this scenario longer term. This is not a “quick fix” scenario and will likely require a rethinking of the way static data is managed within the tool.

   While the “rethinking” bit of this has begun, we don’t specifically have this on the SQL Source Control roadmap (https://www.red-gate.com/products/sql-development/sql-source-control/roadmap) at this point. We do have improved support for use with Git feature branches as a future candidate on the roadmap, and we do know from research with many customers that static data is quite important to folks. While I can’t make any promises, I think we are likely to be able to offer an improvement in this area.

   Thanks for this suggestion and for the many comments and upvotes. I realize that this is a pain point.

   I have a few shorter-term workarounds to summarize as well as some information on the longer roadmap in this update. I know these shorter-term workarounds aren’t perfect (I summarize the pros and cons), but I’m posting them as they may help a few folks.

   Workaround 1) When data changes to static data need to be made, use a “relink the table” pattern
   One can “cleanly rescript” a static data table in SQL Source Control by:

   • Unlinking the static data table
   • Committing
   • Relinking the static data table
   • Committing

   Pro: This works with the GUI and requires no special knowledge or comfort with TSQL. This may help folks with just a few static data tables.
   Con: This requires extra steps and results in extra commits in the history, which I realize can… more

   Jamie Burns supported this idea  ·  October 08, 2017

3. Command line tool (or API) for SQL Source Control Integration

   476 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…)
   64 comments  ·  SQL Source Control  ·  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
   under review  ·  Kendra responded

   Thank you everyone for the suggestions and votes for this over the years.

   I’d like to surface up a workaround for the “linking” problem which is mentioned in the comments. For the use case of easing pains around environment setup with a large number of databases, we have had customers find success using code based off Alessandro Alpi’s blog post: https://alessandroalpi.blog/2016/06/28/automatically-link-databases-to-red-gate-sql-source-control/

   I do understand that this is a broader issue and hear that many of you also want command line or API support for the product in general.

   If there are specific scenarios or workflows that would be useful to automate for you, this feedback is also very useful, and if you have details on the type of VCS you use and the workflow (such as a branching model) that it would fit in to, that would be very helpful for us to hear as well.

   Jamie Burns supported this idea  ·  March 14, 2017

4. Full Text Indexes cause process to fail

   75 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…)
   7 comments  ·  SQL Source Control  ·  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
   An error occurred while saving the comment
   Jamie Burns commented  ·  February 28, 2017  ·  Edit…  ·  Delete…

   It's been a few years now, and this is still an issue.

   Save Submitting...
   Jamie Burns supported this idea  ·  February 28, 2017