I have a database thats got sql as the engine and access 2000 for the client side.Now my problem is every time I edit a record this "Write Conflict" comes up. I did some investigating and I found out its due to a REPLICATIONCONFLICT ERROR.
Can anyone help me plsIs your Access FE running against a database that participates in merge replication? You need to have a serious talk with your DBA about whether you should be developing any app using a db that is already part of another app.|||the only application involved is access 2000, and the network techs are the dba|||what do you mean pls explain FE??sql
Showing posts with label record. Show all posts
Showing posts with label record. Show all posts
Wednesday, March 28, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
replication conflict at deleting
Hello I have a question.
We have a merge replication between 4 servers and it's working fine but we
had a conflict while deleting a record in a master table wich has the
location and product as a key that says :
"The same row was updated at 'servername1.replication' and deleted at
'servername2.replication'. The resolver chose the update as the winner"
It looks like the same record was updated and deleted in a diferent site,
but first it's imposible because every site touches the products of their
own location, the programs that access the database only inserts, updates or
deletes the records of the location where the user logged belongs. Plus
everytime I delete or update or insert a record in this master table we
insert a transaction record for control.
We had the problem and I can see that the user never updated this master
file because I don't have a transaction for update and they deleted the
record but it never got deleted and the problem is that now I have my master
file with records that are not soppoused to be there anymore.
Is there any other reason why this error comes because as I said they never
updated the record and how can I set replication for the deleted as a winner
in every process.
Thanks in advance
Jennyfer
The conflict resolver will give you enough information to accurately identify
the record that is being updated/deleted.
Before you say it is impossible look at these details and compare them.
If the records match then you need to look at your log files and find out
who is deleting and then who is changing this record.
It sounds like replication has discovered an activity that you were not
aware of.
Jim.
"Jennyfer J Barco" wrote:
> Hello I have a question.
> We have a merge replication between 4 servers and it's working fine but we
> had a conflict while deleting a record in a master table wich has the
> location and product as a key that says :
> "The same row was updated at 'servername1.replication' and deleted at
> 'servername2.replication'. The resolver chose the update as the winner"
> It looks like the same record was updated and deleted in a diferent site,
> but first it's imposible because every site touches the products of their
> own location, the programs that access the database only inserts, updates or
> deletes the records of the location where the user logged belongs. Plus
> everytime I delete or update or insert a record in this master table we
> insert a transaction record for control.
> We had the problem and I can see that the user never updated this master
> file because I don't have a transaction for update and they deleted the
> record but it never got deleted and the problem is that now I have my master
> file with records that are not soppoused to be there anymore.
> Is there any other reason why this error comes because as I said they never
> updated the record and how can I set replication for the deleted as a winner
> in every process.
> Thanks in advance
> Jennyfer
>
>
|||Yes I indentify what is the record being deleted and "update" at the same
time and in my log files I have the transaction for delete but not for
update. But I know that replication discovered some how an activity for this
record.
"Jim Breffni" <JimBreffni@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4C1F2708-5F98-402C-B4D5-2950FB356CF4@.microsoft.com...
> The conflict resolver will give you enough information to accurately
identify[vbcol=seagreen]
> the record that is being updated/deleted.
> Before you say it is impossible look at these details and compare them.
> If the records match then you need to look at your log files and find out
> who is deleting and then who is changing this record.
> It sounds like replication has discovered an activity that you were not
> aware of.
> Jim.
>
> "Jennyfer J Barco" wrote:
we[vbcol=seagreen]
site,[vbcol=seagreen]
their[vbcol=seagreen]
updates or[vbcol=seagreen]
master[vbcol=seagreen]
never[vbcol=seagreen]
winner[vbcol=seagreen]
We have a merge replication between 4 servers and it's working fine but we
had a conflict while deleting a record in a master table wich has the
location and product as a key that says :
"The same row was updated at 'servername1.replication' and deleted at
'servername2.replication'. The resolver chose the update as the winner"
It looks like the same record was updated and deleted in a diferent site,
but first it's imposible because every site touches the products of their
own location, the programs that access the database only inserts, updates or
deletes the records of the location where the user logged belongs. Plus
everytime I delete or update or insert a record in this master table we
insert a transaction record for control.
We had the problem and I can see that the user never updated this master
file because I don't have a transaction for update and they deleted the
record but it never got deleted and the problem is that now I have my master
file with records that are not soppoused to be there anymore.
Is there any other reason why this error comes because as I said they never
updated the record and how can I set replication for the deleted as a winner
in every process.
Thanks in advance
Jennyfer
The conflict resolver will give you enough information to accurately identify
the record that is being updated/deleted.
Before you say it is impossible look at these details and compare them.
If the records match then you need to look at your log files and find out
who is deleting and then who is changing this record.
It sounds like replication has discovered an activity that you were not
aware of.
Jim.
"Jennyfer J Barco" wrote:
> Hello I have a question.
> We have a merge replication between 4 servers and it's working fine but we
> had a conflict while deleting a record in a master table wich has the
> location and product as a key that says :
> "The same row was updated at 'servername1.replication' and deleted at
> 'servername2.replication'. The resolver chose the update as the winner"
> It looks like the same record was updated and deleted in a diferent site,
> but first it's imposible because every site touches the products of their
> own location, the programs that access the database only inserts, updates or
> deletes the records of the location where the user logged belongs. Plus
> everytime I delete or update or insert a record in this master table we
> insert a transaction record for control.
> We had the problem and I can see that the user never updated this master
> file because I don't have a transaction for update and they deleted the
> record but it never got deleted and the problem is that now I have my master
> file with records that are not soppoused to be there anymore.
> Is there any other reason why this error comes because as I said they never
> updated the record and how can I set replication for the deleted as a winner
> in every process.
> Thanks in advance
> Jennyfer
>
>
|||Yes I indentify what is the record being deleted and "update" at the same
time and in my log files I have the transaction for delete but not for
update. But I know that replication discovered some how an activity for this
record.
"Jim Breffni" <JimBreffni@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4C1F2708-5F98-402C-B4D5-2950FB356CF4@.microsoft.com...
> The conflict resolver will give you enough information to accurately
identify[vbcol=seagreen]
> the record that is being updated/deleted.
> Before you say it is impossible look at these details and compare them.
> If the records match then you need to look at your log files and find out
> who is deleting and then who is changing this record.
> It sounds like replication has discovered an activity that you were not
> aware of.
> Jim.
>
> "Jennyfer J Barco" wrote:
we[vbcol=seagreen]
site,[vbcol=seagreen]
their[vbcol=seagreen]
updates or[vbcol=seagreen]
master[vbcol=seagreen]
never[vbcol=seagreen]
winner[vbcol=seagreen]
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Replication and User Defined Trigger
Hi, all:
We have 5 databases which contains invoice and invoiceHistory tables.
We have an update and insert trigger on invoice table to record every
modification into InvoiceHistory table. The invoiceHistory table is not
read only, it has some fields that the end user can edit (comments,
date ...etc). At the same time, we using scheduled snapshots every 5
minutes to 'refresh' the table at the suscribers. The problem is when
the replicate server replicate table invoice to a subscribe, the
trigger on invoice table will be triggered and update/insert
InvoiceHistory table in the subscribe. Then when the replicate server
replicate table InvoiceHistory, we will get duplicate record in
InvoiceTable, one is from Invoice table trigger and another is from
InvoiceHistory replicate.
If we do not replicate InvoiceHistory table, then those fields that end
user updated can not be sync to subscribes.
Can I disable the trigger on invoice table when replication?
Does anybody there have a better idea how to do something like this?
ThanksCheck for the NOT FOR REPLICATION option. If you put it, trigger will not be
fired for replication.
MC
<rockdale.green@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143418413.367012.182670@.v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, all:
> We have 5 databases which contains invoice and invoiceHistory tables.
> We have an update and insert trigger on invoice table to record every
> modification into InvoiceHistory table. The invoiceHistory table is not
> read only, it has some fields that the end user can edit (comments,
> date ...etc). At the same time, we using scheduled snapshots every 5
> minutes to 'refresh' the table at the suscribers. The problem is when
> the replicate server replicate table invoice to a subscribe, the
> trigger on invoice table will be triggered and update/insert
> InvoiceHistory table in the subscribe. Then when the replicate server
> replicate table InvoiceHistory, we will get duplicate record in
> InvoiceTable, one is from Invoice table trigger and another is from
> InvoiceHistory replicate.
>
> If we do not replicate InvoiceHistory table, then those fields that end
> user updated can not be sync to subscribes.
> Can I disable the trigger on invoice table when replication?
> Does anybody there have a better idea how to do something like this?
>
> Thanks
>
We have 5 databases which contains invoice and invoiceHistory tables.
We have an update and insert trigger on invoice table to record every
modification into InvoiceHistory table. The invoiceHistory table is not
read only, it has some fields that the end user can edit (comments,
date ...etc). At the same time, we using scheduled snapshots every 5
minutes to 'refresh' the table at the suscribers. The problem is when
the replicate server replicate table invoice to a subscribe, the
trigger on invoice table will be triggered and update/insert
InvoiceHistory table in the subscribe. Then when the replicate server
replicate table InvoiceHistory, we will get duplicate record in
InvoiceTable, one is from Invoice table trigger and another is from
InvoiceHistory replicate.
If we do not replicate InvoiceHistory table, then those fields that end
user updated can not be sync to subscribes.
Can I disable the trigger on invoice table when replication?
Does anybody there have a better idea how to do something like this?
ThanksCheck for the NOT FOR REPLICATION option. If you put it, trigger will not be
fired for replication.
MC
<rockdale.green@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143418413.367012.182670@.v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, all:
> We have 5 databases which contains invoice and invoiceHistory tables.
> We have an update and insert trigger on invoice table to record every
> modification into InvoiceHistory table. The invoiceHistory table is not
> read only, it has some fields that the end user can edit (comments,
> date ...etc). At the same time, we using scheduled snapshots every 5
> minutes to 'refresh' the table at the suscribers. The problem is when
> the replicate server replicate table invoice to a subscribe, the
> trigger on invoice table will be triggered and update/insert
> InvoiceHistory table in the subscribe. Then when the replicate server
> replicate table InvoiceHistory, we will get duplicate record in
> InvoiceTable, one is from Invoice table trigger and another is from
> InvoiceHistory replicate.
>
> If we do not replicate InvoiceHistory table, then those fields that end
> user updated can not be sync to subscribes.
> Can I disable the trigger on invoice table when replication?
> Does anybody there have a better idea how to do something like this?
>
> Thanks
>
Replication and User Defined Trigger
Hi, all:
We have 5 databases which contains invoice and invoiceHistory tables.
We have an update and insert trigger on invoice table to record every
modification into InvoiceHistory table. The invoiceHistory table is not
read only, it has some fields that the end user can edit (comments,
date ...etc). At the same time, we using scheduled snapshots every 5
minutes to 'refresh' the table at the suscribers. The problem is when
the replicate server replicate table invoice to a subscribe, the
trigger on invoice table will be triggered and update/insert
InvoiceHistory table in the subscribe. Then when the replicate server
replicate table InvoiceHistory, we will get duplicate record in
InvoiceTable, one is from Invoice table trigger and another is from
InvoiceHistory replicate.
If we do not replicate InvoiceHistory table, then those fields that end
user updated can not be sync to subscribes.
Can I disable the trigger on invoice table when replication?
Does anybody there have a better idea how to do something like this?
Thanks
Check for the NOT FOR REPLICATION option. If you put it, trigger will not be
fired for replication.
MC
<rockdale.green@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143418413.367012.182670@.v46g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi, all:
> We have 5 databases which contains invoice and invoiceHistory tables.
> We have an update and insert trigger on invoice table to record every
> modification into InvoiceHistory table. The invoiceHistory table is not
> read only, it has some fields that the end user can edit (comments,
> date ...etc). At the same time, we using scheduled snapshots every 5
> minutes to 'refresh' the table at the suscribers. The problem is when
> the replicate server replicate table invoice to a subscribe, the
> trigger on invoice table will be triggered and update/insert
> InvoiceHistory table in the subscribe. Then when the replicate server
> replicate table InvoiceHistory, we will get duplicate record in
> InvoiceTable, one is from Invoice table trigger and another is from
> InvoiceHistory replicate.
>
> If we do not replicate InvoiceHistory table, then those fields that end
> user updated can not be sync to subscribes.
> Can I disable the trigger on invoice table when replication?
> Does anybody there have a better idea how to do something like this?
>
> Thanks
>
We have 5 databases which contains invoice and invoiceHistory tables.
We have an update and insert trigger on invoice table to record every
modification into InvoiceHistory table. The invoiceHistory table is not
read only, it has some fields that the end user can edit (comments,
date ...etc). At the same time, we using scheduled snapshots every 5
minutes to 'refresh' the table at the suscribers. The problem is when
the replicate server replicate table invoice to a subscribe, the
trigger on invoice table will be triggered and update/insert
InvoiceHistory table in the subscribe. Then when the replicate server
replicate table InvoiceHistory, we will get duplicate record in
InvoiceTable, one is from Invoice table trigger and another is from
InvoiceHistory replicate.
If we do not replicate InvoiceHistory table, then those fields that end
user updated can not be sync to subscribes.
Can I disable the trigger on invoice table when replication?
Does anybody there have a better idea how to do something like this?
Thanks
Check for the NOT FOR REPLICATION option. If you put it, trigger will not be
fired for replication.
MC
<rockdale.green@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143418413.367012.182670@.v46g2000cwv.googlegr oups.com...
> Hi, all:
> We have 5 databases which contains invoice and invoiceHistory tables.
> We have an update and insert trigger on invoice table to record every
> modification into InvoiceHistory table. The invoiceHistory table is not
> read only, it has some fields that the end user can edit (comments,
> date ...etc). At the same time, we using scheduled snapshots every 5
> minutes to 'refresh' the table at the suscribers. The problem is when
> the replicate server replicate table invoice to a subscribe, the
> trigger on invoice table will be triggered and update/insert
> InvoiceHistory table in the subscribe. Then when the replicate server
> replicate table InvoiceHistory, we will get duplicate record in
> InvoiceTable, one is from Invoice table trigger and another is from
> InvoiceHistory replicate.
>
> If we do not replicate InvoiceHistory table, then those fields that end
> user updated can not be sync to subscribes.
> Can I disable the trigger on invoice table when replication?
> Does anybody there have a better idea how to do something like this?
>
> Thanks
>
Tuesday, March 20, 2012
Replication and User Defined Trigger
Hi, all:
We have 5 databases which contains invoice and invoiceHistory tables.
We have an update and insert trigger on invoice table to record every
modification into InvoiceHistory table. The invoiceHistory table is not
read only, it has some fields that the end user can edit (comments,
date ...etc). At the same time, we using scheduled snapshots every 5
minutes to 'refresh' the table at the suscribers. The problem is when
the replicate server replicate table invoice to a subscribe, the
trigger on invoice table will be triggered and update/insert
InvoiceHistory table in the subscribe. Then when the replicate server
replicate table InvoiceHistory, we will get duplicate record in
InvoiceTable, one is from Invoice table trigger and another is from
InvoiceHistory replicate.
If we do not replicate InvoiceHistory table, then those fields that end
user updated can not be sync to subscribes.
Can I disable the trigger on invoice table when replication?
Does anybody there have a better idea how to do something like this?
ThanksCheck for the NOT FOR REPLICATION option. If you put it, trigger will not be
fired for replication.
MC
<rockdale.green@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143418413.367012.182670@.v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, all:
> We have 5 databases which contains invoice and invoiceHistory tables.
> We have an update and insert trigger on invoice table to record every
> modification into InvoiceHistory table. The invoiceHistory table is not
> read only, it has some fields that the end user can edit (comments,
> date ...etc). At the same time, we using scheduled snapshots every 5
> minutes to 'refresh' the table at the suscribers. The problem is when
> the replicate server replicate table invoice to a subscribe, the
> trigger on invoice table will be triggered and update/insert
> InvoiceHistory table in the subscribe. Then when the replicate server
> replicate table InvoiceHistory, we will get duplicate record in
> InvoiceTable, one is from Invoice table trigger and another is from
> InvoiceHistory replicate.
>
> If we do not replicate InvoiceHistory table, then those fields that end
> user updated can not be sync to subscribes.
> Can I disable the trigger on invoice table when replication?
> Does anybody there have a better idea how to do something like this?
>
> Thanks
>
We have 5 databases which contains invoice and invoiceHistory tables.
We have an update and insert trigger on invoice table to record every
modification into InvoiceHistory table. The invoiceHistory table is not
read only, it has some fields that the end user can edit (comments,
date ...etc). At the same time, we using scheduled snapshots every 5
minutes to 'refresh' the table at the suscribers. The problem is when
the replicate server replicate table invoice to a subscribe, the
trigger on invoice table will be triggered and update/insert
InvoiceHistory table in the subscribe. Then when the replicate server
replicate table InvoiceHistory, we will get duplicate record in
InvoiceTable, one is from Invoice table trigger and another is from
InvoiceHistory replicate.
If we do not replicate InvoiceHistory table, then those fields that end
user updated can not be sync to subscribes.
Can I disable the trigger on invoice table when replication?
Does anybody there have a better idea how to do something like this?
ThanksCheck for the NOT FOR REPLICATION option. If you put it, trigger will not be
fired for replication.
MC
<rockdale.green@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1143418413.367012.182670@.v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
> Hi, all:
> We have 5 databases which contains invoice and invoiceHistory tables.
> We have an update and insert trigger on invoice table to record every
> modification into InvoiceHistory table. The invoiceHistory table is not
> read only, it has some fields that the end user can edit (comments,
> date ...etc). At the same time, we using scheduled snapshots every 5
> minutes to 'refresh' the table at the suscribers. The problem is when
> the replicate server replicate table invoice to a subscribe, the
> trigger on invoice table will be triggered and update/insert
> InvoiceHistory table in the subscribe. Then when the replicate server
> replicate table InvoiceHistory, we will get duplicate record in
> InvoiceTable, one is from Invoice table trigger and another is from
> InvoiceHistory replicate.
>
> If we do not replicate InvoiceHistory table, then those fields that end
> user updated can not be sync to subscribes.
> Can I disable the trigger on invoice table when replication?
> Does anybody there have a better idea how to do something like this?
>
> Thanks
>
Monday, March 12, 2012
Replication : Deleted Records Keep Reapearing
Im currently having problems with merge replication.
Example:
When a customer record is deleted from tbl_customers its removed from the table, then its reappears about 30s - 1min later?
Im presuming the other server is restoring the record though replication.
Any Insight in to this would be most appreciated.
DanielI've found the error but still not to sure why its occuring?
Heres the errors
------
"The row was deleted at 'ENTERPRISE.PMSPS' but could not be deleted at 'VOYAGER.PMSPS'. Invalid object name 'tbl_contacts'."
[Conflict Winner]
The error described above occurred when trying to delete this row. If you ignore this conflict, you should resolve it through other means. Consider logging the details of this conflict, then sending the log entry to your system administrator. The value of the unique ID in column 'rowguid' is '{D2604393-EBB4-4CF7-97BC-562C28B6BD1B}'.
[Conflict Loser]
This row has been deleted. If you choose to ignore the conflict, Microsoft SQL Server will try to reinsert the deleted row, using data from the other server.
I have the option to Keep winning change which will just put the record back in or I can Resubmit the DELETE which just comes back with the same error.
:(
Example:
When a customer record is deleted from tbl_customers its removed from the table, then its reappears about 30s - 1min later?
Im presuming the other server is restoring the record though replication.
Any Insight in to this would be most appreciated.
DanielI've found the error but still not to sure why its occuring?
Heres the errors
------
"The row was deleted at 'ENTERPRISE.PMSPS' but could not be deleted at 'VOYAGER.PMSPS'. Invalid object name 'tbl_contacts'."
[Conflict Winner]
The error described above occurred when trying to delete this row. If you ignore this conflict, you should resolve it through other means. Consider logging the details of this conflict, then sending the log entry to your system administrator. The value of the unique ID in column 'rowguid' is '{D2604393-EBB4-4CF7-97BC-562C28B6BD1B}'.
[Conflict Loser]
This row has been deleted. If you choose to ignore the conflict, Microsoft SQL Server will try to reinsert the deleted row, using data from the other server.
I have the option to Keep winning change which will just put the record back in or I can Resubmit the DELETE which just comes back with the same error.
:(
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Replication
Dudes,
I have this customer who is interested to replicate a SQL Server 2005
database to a MySQL database, online... For example, you insert a record to
the SQL Server and it automatically inserts it on the MySQL database. Both
has the same schema. They are on a LAN or VPN.
I just need an idea on how you would solve this...
Cheers!
Officially this is not supported on SQL 2005. You can try to add an ole-db
provider to MySQL and create it as a subscriber that way.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Christian Strevel (Intellekt)" <cs@.prodigy.net.mx> wrote in message
news:u9UrgXw7GHA.1012@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Dudes,
> I have this customer who is interested to replicate a SQL Server 2005
> database to a MySQL database, online... For example, you insert a record
> to the SQL Server and it automatically inserts it on the MySQL database.
> Both has the same schema. They are on a LAN or VPN.
> I just need an idea on how you would solve this...
> Cheers!
>
I have this customer who is interested to replicate a SQL Server 2005
database to a MySQL database, online... For example, you insert a record to
the SQL Server and it automatically inserts it on the MySQL database. Both
has the same schema. They are on a LAN or VPN.
I just need an idea on how you would solve this...
Cheers!
Officially this is not supported on SQL 2005. You can try to add an ole-db
provider to MySQL and create it as a subscriber that way.
Hilary Cotter
Director of Text Mining and Database Strategy
RelevantNOISE.Com - Dedicated to mining blogs for business intelligence.
This posting is my own and doesn't necessarily represent RelevantNoise's
positions, strategies or opinions.
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
Looking for a FAQ on Indexing Services/SQL FTS
http://www.indexserverfaq.com
"Christian Strevel (Intellekt)" <cs@.prodigy.net.mx> wrote in message
news:u9UrgXw7GHA.1012@.TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> Dudes,
> I have this customer who is interested to replicate a SQL Server 2005
> database to a MySQL database, online... For example, you insert a record
> to the SQL Server and it automatically inserts it on the MySQL database.
> Both has the same schema. They are on a LAN or VPN.
> I just need an idea on how you would solve this...
> Cheers!
>
Saturday, February 25, 2012
Replication
database replication: if I replicate a database and I update a record on
Server_1 at the sametime I update the same record on Server_2 what would
happen ?
Server_1 at the sametime I update the same record on Server_2 what would
happen ?
Thanks
TomThat answer will depend on what type of replication you have set up. You
haven't said what type of replication you are using. Nor have you said what
role these 2 servers play in your replication environment. More detail
information is needed.
"Tom Gao" <tomgaomail@.optushome.com.au> wrote in message
news:41c013a0$0$1125$afc38c87@.news.optusnet.com.au ...
> database replication: if I replicate a database and I update a record on
> Server_1 at the sametime I update the same record on Server_2 what would
> happen ?
> Thanks
> Tom
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)