Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Support multi-catalog deployments #149

Closed
tmasternak opened this issue Feb 3, 2016 · 8 comments
Closed

Support multi-catalog deployments #149

tmasternak opened this issue Feb 3, 2016 · 8 comments
Labels

Comments

@tmasternak
Copy link
Member

Version 3 of SqlTransprort supports only multi-schema setup. It should be possible to add multi-catalog support as well.

See #139 for more details
Inception: https://github.com/Particular/CustomerSuccess/issues/166

@tmasternak tmasternak changed the title Add support for multi-catalog deployments Support multi-catalog deployments Feb 3, 2016
@mauroservienti
Copy link
Member

As discussed this morning the catalog name should be part of the endpoint address as it is for the schema name in 3.0

@ramonsmits
Copy link
Member

Should support both: userdb.dbo and also [userdb].[dbo] to also supports dots in catalogs and/or schemas.

@SzymonPobiega
Copy link
Member

I am not convinced here. Single even SQL 2016 does not support cross-catalog transactions in AlwaysOn mode, catalog seems to be something physical rather than logical. I'd rather put the catalog/database in same bucket as SQL server instances and handle it similarly to RabbitMQ shovel plugin.

@mauroservienti
Copy link
Member

@SzymonPobiega here you are sir #146

And you have a good point, @tmasternak let's review this in light of that.

@SzymonPobiega
Copy link
Member

Here's the article that describes AlwaysOn vs cross-catalog transactions: https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms366279(v=sql.130).aspx. My understanding is not supported but the wording is a bit confusing. Should we try it and verify?

@tmasternak
Copy link
Member Author

I think that we should try a spike and verify our assumptions.

@MarcinHoppe
Copy link
Contributor

Spike issue has been created: #325.

@SzymonPobiega
Copy link
Member

Fixed by #330

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants