I am hitting my head against the wall for a weird error I am getting in VS2012.
I have a database project which includes some Synonyms. They are basically table references to another database in order to avoid dynamic SQL generation. I already added the required reference database for the Synonyms. Everything works great except a couple of views that are using some of those Synonyms! Since I am using the same Synonyms in my stored procedures and they are not causing any build failure, I am not sure why the views are causing problem.
The error message says: "SQL05313: Synonym 'xxx' refers to an invalid object.'
Here is a sample code -
dbo.MyTable.sql...
CREATE SYNONYM [dbo].[MyTable] FOR [$(FOO_DB)].[dbo].[MyTable];
dbo.MyProc
CREATE [dbo].[MyProc] AS SELECT col1, col2, col3 FROM [dbo].[MyTable];
SUCCESS: this works
dbo.MyView.sql...
CREATE VIEW [dbo].[MyView] AS SELECT col1, col2, col3 FROM [dbo].[MyTable];
ERROR: SQL05313 Synonym '[dbo].[MyTable]' refers to an invalid object.
Has anyone else faced this issue? If yes, I appreciate your assistance :)
For some reason, reference errors in SPs are treated as warnings, while the same in views is treated as an error. Thus the error just means that the reference to $(FOO_DB) is not working - double check that the variable reference is set up correctly.
If you are referencing another DB project, it must be compilable to .dacpac individually (e.g. you cannot create circular references). If you really need circular reference (view in FOO_DB1 references FOO_DB2, and view in FOO_DB2 references FOO_DB1), look into composite objects (database reference of type same database).
I got this error, and I eventually found that I had run CREATE SYNONYM fred FOR ... instead of CREATE SYNONYM **dbo**.fred FOR ...
It therefore created the synonym in my personal schema, instead of dbo, and this stopped the CREATE VIEW.
I know that your code includes [dbo].[MyTable], but do you have an identical synonym in your own schema, from a previous CREATE SYNONYM command that did not include the [dbo], which might be confusing the CREATE VIEW command?
Related
I want to be able to make CTE to make the below SQL work, I am getting the error
ERROR: Cannot replace a normal view with a late binding view for the below SQL, any way I could change it up so that it doesnt bind with schema views?
CREATE OR REPLACE
VIEW "dev"."XXBRK_DAILY_FX_RATES" ("F_C", "CURRENCY", "C_D", "C_R") AS
SELECT DISTINCT GL.GL_R.F_C, GL.GL_R.CURRENCY,
GL.GL_R.DATE, GL.GL_R.C_R
FROM GL.GL_R
with no schema binding
WHERE GL.GL_R.C_T='Corporate'
UNION ALL
SELECT DISTINCT GL.GL_R.F_C, GL.GL_R.F_C CURRENCY, GL.GL_R.DATE, 1
FROM GL.GL_R;
So you seem to have a statement issue. The last 4 lines are after the ';' and not part of the statement being run. I'm guessing that these are extraneous and posted by mistake.
Views on Redshift come in several types - normal and late binding are 2. The view "dev"."XXBRK_DAILY_FX_RATES" seems to already exist in your cluster so your command is trying to replace it, not create it. The error message is correct, you cannot replace a view with a view of a different type. You need to drop the view, then recreate it as late binding.
Now be careful as other objects dependent on this view will be impacted when you drop it (especially if you CASCADE the drop). When you drop and recreate the view it is a new object in the database but replacing a view just make a new definition for the same object. Understand the impacts of drop to your database before you execute it.
Last week, as a part of one requirement, I wrote a script to generate object definition for all database objects.
While testing, I found that for few stored procedures, [sys.objects].name was not matching with name in actual object definition (as returned by OBJECT_DEFINITION(Object_ID)). It was very strange and I saw it first time in life.
While thinking for what could be the reason of same, I found that it happens when we rename stored procedure from Object Explorer (View--> Object Explorer in SQL Server Management studio).
Just wondering, is there any way to retrieve actual object name (in this case, SP name)?
I had the same problem. It appears SP_RENAME doesn't update the object definition. From the sp_rename link, microsoft says:
Renaming a stored procedure, function, view, or trigger will not change the name of the corresponding object either in the definition column of the sys.sql_modules catalog view or obtained using the OBJECT_DEFINITION built-in function. Therefore, we recommend that sp_rename not be used to rename these object types. Instead, drop and re-create the object with its new name.
I had a similar situation, where a stored procedure had been renamed using sp_rename. The new name used was iterative, with an extension of *_1. If the original name was 'MyProcedure', the new name would have been 'MyProcedure_1'.
'MyProcedure' represented the production code. 'MyProcedure_1' represented code that had been production code at one time, but was now obsolete. Indeed, 'MyProcedure_1' referenced objects that were no longer present in the database.
When looking at the name in sys.objects, the new name with the extension was there ('MyProcedure_1'), but the object_definition returned the old name ('MyProcedure'), but with the code for 'MyProcedure_1'.
This was discovered via a call to 'MyProcedure', which errored out, due to the missing objects.
The solution was to DROP 'MyProcedure_1', which effectively removed the object_id, and the erroneous object_definition, and reCREATE it. Of course we had to address the missing objects. And - we spread caution about using sp_rename for objects other than tables/columns.
I recently used - EXEC sp_rename '<source table name>', '<destination table name>' to rename an existing table and want to execute the same on one of our live server. Is there any issue in using this procedure to rename a table?. I am asking this because one of our DBA says there will be problems in using this procedure on live server.
Is nothing referencing the table you're renaming? That would be the only instance where I would think renaming the table would not have an impact. If the table was not referenced by anything however, what would be the purpose of the table?
you can read more about sp_rename here:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188351.aspx
Specifically note the following:
Renaming an object such as a table or column will not automatically
rename references to that object. You must modify any objects that
reference the renamed object manually. For example, if you rename a
table column and that column is referenced in a trigger, you must
modify the trigger to reflect the new column name. Use
sys.sql_expression_dependencies to list dependencies on the object
before renaming it.
There is no major issue with renaming the table using that procedure. The only thing you need to remember is that while that command is being executed, the locks that are applied on that table won't allow you to query the data, but that should only take only a couple of milliseconds, so you should be fine.
P.S. Don't forget to modify your views, procedures, functions etc :)
Below is the only caution as described inthe microsoft official web site.
Changing any part of an object name can break scripts and stored procedures. We recommend you do not use this statement to rename stored procedures, triggers, user-defined functions, or views; instead, drop the object and re-create it with the new name.
More details at : http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms188351.aspx
EXEC sp_rename is recommended only when we sure that all the depended SP, View function are not get affected. Make sureyou changed or deleted the depended objects.
Perhaps your DBA can share the details of his/her concerns. Renaming a table will of course be a breaking change for any objects that reference the table so you'll need to perform due diligence to ensure dependent objects are changed to use the new name. The rename operation will also require a short schema modification lock and void existing referencing cached plans, so be aware of this if the table is heavily used.
I have been using a script run from a batch file to create and edit a table. As far as I cold tell it was working and I worked on a different issue.
However, at some point something has gone wrong.
In PLSQL Developer I tried to select from the table and I got the error:
ORA-01775: looping chain of synonyms
If I try to drop the table I get the error:
ORA-00942: table or view does not exist
I have never, intentionally, created and synonyms so I checked with this:
SELECT owner,synonym_name,table_owner,table_name from dba_synonyms where synonym_name='broken_table';
There are no results returned. The other similar questions on here do not seem to have the same situation or the actual solution, can anyone give any advice on how to proceed here?
(as you can guess sql is not my strong suit).
I got the ORA-01775 error from trying to access a table via a synonym where the table did not exist. The table had been dropped and had not yet been recreated. The synonym was still there. There was no looping synonym.
I know databases aren't supported by CREATE SYNONYM, but I'm looking to achieve the functionality this would provide.
We've got Database A which contains views to tables on Database B. The trouble is "Database B" isn't always called "Database B". We use database projects for deployments, which at the moment fall over with an "Invalid Object Name" error if there isn't a "Database B".
The workaround at the moment is to open up the .dbschema file and do a find and replace. I guess another option would be to create a load of table synonyms.
What's the best way of changing the database a number of views reference without changing each view individually?
Thanks
Synonyms are a good way to do this. You have to create the synonyms at the object level though (as you've discovered). An easy way to do this would be to write a script that runs through the list of tables in DatabaseB (from your example) and creates a synonym for each one in DatabaseA. Keep the name of the synonym the same so the code in your views doesn't have to change. For instance, you you have tbl_a, tbl_b, and tbl_c in DatabaseB, you'd want your script to eventually do the following:
create synonym [otherDb].[tbl_a] for [DatabaseB].[schemaB].[tbl_a]
create synonym [otherDb].[tbl_b] for [DatabaseB].[schemaB].[tbl_b]
create synonym [otherDb].[tbl_c] for [DatabaseB].[schemaB].[tbl_c]
Now, in your view code, you'll always use [otherDb].[tbl_a], [otherDb].[tbl_b], and [otherDb].[tbl_c]. Hope this makes sense.
Last year I helped my current client with the implementation of a very similar design. We wrote a set of functions and stored procedures which generate the views automatically. Whenever you need to change the target database it generates the code to drop and recreate all of the views.
The code wasn't too difficult. It just uses the system tables to generate view code. I also wrote a Powershell prototype that uses SMO to do the same thing. The key is to have it automated to the point of requiring a single call so that you can do it easily and accurately.
We also included an exception table that used a pattern match of tables to exclude from view generation. It included a schema column and a table name column, each of which accepted LIKE patterns, so you could put "my_schema" and "%" to exclude all tables in the my_schema schema.
One master stored procedure accepted a target database name and would generate the entire script. Once the script is generated you can run it in SSMS or have that part automated as well.
This whole thing would be even easier if you just wanted to generate synonyms. We were using views so that we could change column lists, etc. and have the view DB look different than the target DB where needed.