Wednesday, March 28, 2012

Merge doesn't re-propagate changes arrived from Transaccional repl

I have a the following scenario:
- A transactional publicaction "TRN2000" (in SrvSQLServer2000 server)
- A push subscription to "TRN2000" publication(in SrvSQLServer2005 server)
- A merge publication "Merge2005" defined in SrvSQLServer2005 over the same
Database/tables
that transactional subscription replicate
- Subscriptions to "Merge2005" publication
Then, this is the behavior:
- Data changes in SrvSQLServer2000 are replicated to SrvSQLServer2005 through
the TRN2000 subscription (OK)
- When I directly modify data(update, insert,) in the SrvSQLServer2005,
merge susbscriptions
receives data changes (OK)
But the problem is that data changes received in the SrvSQLServer2005
database
through the "Trn2000" replication..are not propagated to the "Merge2005"
subscriptions..
I suspect that the problem is that Transactional Push subscription use Bulk
Operations over
SrvSqlServer2005 and these are being ignored by the "Merge2005" replication
triggers.
some idea? workaround?
thanks in advance,
Alexander.
If the problem occurs during initialization, have a look at the
@.fire_triggers_on_snapshot parameter in sp_addarticle.
HTH,
Paul Ibison
|||Thanks Paul for the answer.
Unfortunately, the problem happens not only at initialization. It happens
when propagating any change on the data..
some idea?
"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> If the problem occurs during initialization, have a look at the
> @.fire_triggers_on_snapshot parameter in sp_addarticle.
> HTH,
> Paul Ibison
|||In that case I'm confused. The commands replicated are sent down as calls to
insert/update/delete stored procedures on the subscriber. This isn't like a
bulk insert or a fast load which themselves don't fire triggers. Is your
transactional setup one that involves updating subscribers ie has triggers of
its own? Are there any other triggers on the table? Are any/all triggers
marked as NOT FOR REPLICATION?
Rgds,
Paul Ibison
|||Table “T” on which the Transaction replication records the data (same table
“T” that also is published through the Merge replication) doesn’t have other
triggers.
OK, the use of “Bulk Insert” by the Transactional replication was only a
supposition.
I thought that insert could be doing “bulk insert” because if I execute:
sp_addtabletocontents @.table_name='T'
Merge replication replicate pending changes (changes that became on table
“T” through the Transaccional replication) to its subscribers.
(I could send you by mail my replication scripts if you think that they can
clarify something)
"Paul Ibison" wrote:

> In that case I'm confused. The commands replicated are sent down as calls to
> insert/update/delete stored procedures on the subscriber. This isn't like a
> bulk insert or a fast load which themselves don't fire triggers. Is your
> transactional setup one that involves updating subscribers ie has triggers of
> its own? Are there any other triggers on the table? Are any/all triggers
> marked as NOT FOR REPLICATION?
> Rgds,
> Paul Ibison
>
|||I'll have a go at reproducing and then post back...Meanwhile can you confirm
that the changes are definitely coming from transactional replication and not
being bulk loaded into the republished table directly.
Paul Ibison
|||Surely,
I have verified that making data modifications (through sql standard
sentences insert, update, delete)
on the database that has the transaccional publication, the changes arrive
correctly at table T and these
same changes are not re-propagated to merge subscriptions.
I thank for your dedication in this subject
Alexander Wolff
|||Hello Alexander & Paul,
I'm having exactly the same problem,
I wonder if you've found a solution (or explanation) for this issue.
Thanks,
Vladimir Kofman

> Surely,
> I have verified that making data modifications (through sql standard
> sentences insert, update, delete)
> on the database that has the transaccional publication, the changes
> arrive
> correctly at table T and these
> same changes are not re-propagated to merge subscriptions.
> I thank for your dedication in this subject
> Alexander Wolff
>

No comments:

Post a Comment