Re: detaching db and stopping services

From: Tibor Karaszi (tibor_please.no.email_karaszi_at_hotmail.nomail.com)
Date: 08/10/04 

Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2004 18:19:52 +0200

IMO, it doesn't matter what anyone of us say (no disrespect to anyone here, I'm just making a point). What
matter is what the documentation say. And the documentation say that you are guaranteed to be able to attach a
db only if you detached it first. (Look up BOL for exact wording.) 

-- 
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
"MikeF" <mrf@sent.com> wrote in message news:%23nPAyBufEHA.904@TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Jacco Schalkwijk wrote:
>
> > When you detach a database, a checkpoint happens in the database. That means
> > that all changed that have been made to datapages but that haven't been
> > written to the data file yet, are written to disk. All these changes are of
> > course already in the transaction log.
> >
> > Shutting down SQL Services should perform a check point as well, but IIRC
> > the documentation in Books Online (see SHUTDOWN) is not complete at this
> > point. If the server or service fails, you will in most cases not have a
> > properly check pointed data file, and you will need the transaction log to
> > recover your database.
> >
> > It is definitely recommended that if you want to attach a database to
> > another server, that you use sp_detachdb.
> >
>
> Thanks Jacco.  What do you think of Wayne's point that if the service
> MSSQL$SQL2000 is stopped using SQL Server Service Manager, then the db
> files ARE in exactly the same state as if they were detached using
> sp_detach_db ??
>
> I understand that using sp_detach_db is the proper way to do it, and we
> are doing it that way, but this is a peculiar configuration I am trying
> to work with and I need to know if using SQL Server Service Manager to
> stop the service is actually the same as using sp_detach_db, like Wayne
> suggests.
>
> Many thanks for your time.
>
> -- Mike
>

Relevant Pages