I'm using a user defined table type to pass into my stored proc.
I've had cause to change the table type to add an extra column, and now I get the error:
The parameter "#MyParam" is not the same type as the type it was
created with. Drop and recreate the module using a two-part name for
the type, or use sp_refreshsqlmodule to refresh its parameters
metadata.
when calling the proc from my .net code.
I am adding the param value to my command like so:
var param = _command.Parameters.AddWithValue("#MyParam" , myTypedDataTable)
param.SqlDbType = SqlDbType.Structured;
where myTypedDataTable has been updated to contain the new column.
I have tried dropping and recreating the stored proc that is called, as well as dropping and recreating the User Defined Table.
I have also (thanks to Google) tried to use sys.sp_refreshsqlmodule on my Stored Proc and User Defined Table (It did not work however, on the User Defined Table, giving me the error: "Could not find object '[myUserDefinedTable]' or you do not have permission.", I beleieve this may be due to sys.sp_refreshsqlmodule not being able to work on user defined tables?)
I think I am probably missing something basic here, but can't see what?
I have found the error. There was another stored proc which relied on the user defined table which needed to be dropped and recreated. I'm surprised that this was missed, as when I tried to drop the user defined table first time around, It did not let me as the SP mentioned above referenced it (I had to drop the SP to remove the dependency, then drop the User Defined Table, and then recreate them both), yet it did not complain about a dependency for the newly found SP?
Try to specify the TypeName for the parameter:
param.TypeName = "dbo.YourTableDefinition";
Related
I have removed a column from a table which is referred in a stored procedure. When I alter that stored procedure, there is no error, but when executing it, an error
Invalid column name
is thrown.
I'm using SSMS 2017
You are looking for functionality called "schema binding". This means that if you cannot change the schema of an object if it is being referenced in a view or stored procedure.
This is handled on the dependent level, rather than on the original object. The place to start is with the documentation on SCHEMABINDING.
In practice, this means the following procedure:
Alter the object (i.e. table).
Get a schema binding error.
Drop the schemabinding option on all objects that refer to the original object.
Modify the original object.
Modify the dependent objects.
Be sure schema binding is back "on" the dependent objects.
It is a bit cumbersome, but it helps enforce database dependencies.
I want to create a dynamic view at runtime made up of string of columns and a where clause using EXECUTE IMMEDIATE on one database which will be queried on a second database using a db_link.
My question are the following.
The view will be queried on another database using a database_link do I need to also GRANT privileges to the view (i.e. PUBLIC) and the SYNONYM (as PUBLIC) at the same time (if at all)? or does this only need to be created once?
Can a package be INVALID if in the PL/SQL package there is a reference to an object on another database via a database link that doesn't exist, is INVALID or has changed in structure? Or does it compile regardless?
I'm assuming I would need "CREATE OR REPLACE VIEW" in the the EXECUTE IMMEDIATE string as the second time I run this process the view will already exist on the database?
Thanks Guys in advance for any feedback on this.
First of all, I'd suggest you not to do that. In Oracle, objects are created once and used any time you want. What benefit do you expect from creating a view dynamically? (I'm not saying that you must not do it, just suggesting to think it over).
Now, to answer your questions:
You don't need GRANT because - in order to create a database link, you already know remote database's username and password
If object in another database is invalid, then executing or compiling your procedure will fail
Yes, as without or replace Oracle will complain that object with that name already exists.
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'm attempting to rename a stored procedure in SQL Server 2008 with sp_rename system sproc. The third parameter is giving me difficulty though and I keep receiving the following error:
Msg 15249, Level 11, State 1, Procedure sp_rename, Line 75
Error: Explicit #objtype 'P' is unrecognized.
As the message indicates I'm passing in a P for the value of the parameter. I call the sproc like this:
EXEC sp_rename #objName = #procName, #newname = #WrappedName, #objtype = 'P';
I double checked the documentation which says this is the value from sys.objects. I ran the following to double check I wasn't going crazy
select * from sys.objects where name = 'MySprocName'
and indeed the type returned is P.
Does anyone know what I should pass here? I don't want to leave this empty since I'm creating a generic sproc to among other things rename arbitrary sprocs and if there is a name collision between a sproc and something else I don't want to have to worry about that.
Just omit the #objtype parameter (the default is null) and it will work.
EXEC sp_rename 'sp_MyProc', 'sp_MyProcName'
You will receive the following warning, but the procedure will be renamed
Caution: Changing any part of an
object name could break scripts and
stored procedures.
Like others stated, you should drop and recreate the procedure.
According to the docs, 'P' is not a correct option. You should try 'OBJECT' as that seems like the closest thing to what you're trying to do. But, you should heed this warning ...
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.
Also (from the same MSDN page):
Renaming a stored procedure, function, view, or trigger will not
change the name of the corresponding object name in the definition
column of the sys.sql_modules catalog view. 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.
sp_rename does not support procedures:
Changes the name of a user-created
object in the current database. This
object can be a table, index, column,
alias data type, or Microsoft .NET
Framework common language runtime
(CLR) user-defined type.
Just create the new procedure with the same body and new name, then drop the old one.
I'm not sure about the #objtype variable, however I do know that renaming via sp_rename is bad.
When you create a stored proc, a record for it exists in sys.objects and the definition of the stored proc will be stored in sys.sql_modules.
Using sp_rename will only change the name in sys.objects, not in sys.sql_modules thus your definition will be incorrect.
The best solution is a drop & recreate
The third parameter(#objtype) is required when you want to rename a
database object other than a stored procedure. Otherwise it is
necessary to pass a third parameter. For example renaming a column
using sp_rename will look something like this.
USE AdventureWorks2012;
GO
EXEC sp_rename 'Sales.SalesTerritory.TerritoryID', 'TerrID', 'COLUMN';
GO
To rename a user-defined stored procedure using sp_rename,you can do something like this and it literally works
However it is not recommended by Microsoft, DB experts (and others here as well) to use this stored procedure as it will break things internally and might possibly incur unusual results later.Therefore it is bad. Here's what Microsoft has to say:
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.
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.
You can read about it here: sp_rename (Transact-SQL)
There are two approaches to rename stored procedure.
Dropping and Recreating Procedure : The problem is it will lead to losing of permissions.
sp_rename of Procedure : Permissions will remain intact. The stored procedure will be renamed. But, sys.sql_modules will still be having the old definition.
I prefer the second approach. I followed the below steps:
Have copy of the stored Procedure content
Rename the stored procedure
EXEC sp_rename 'dbo.OldStoredProcedureName','NewStoredProcedureName'
GO
ALTER PROCEDURE to have the modified code of the procedure in the sys.sql_modules
ALTER PROCEDURE dbo.NewStoredProcedureName
...
Now, Stored procedure name is also updated and code is refreshed in sys.sql_modules and permissions are also intact.
In SQL 2000 days, it was safer to DROP/CREATE-- SQL used to let the meta data for the proc get out of synch when you use sp_rename.
The best way to find out how to do fancy DDL like that is to use SSMS to rename the object while a profiler trace is attached.
All that Valentino Vranken said is true. However bear in mind that when you drop and create a stored procedure, you lose all of your metadata. (Create_Date, Modify_Date etc.)
Renaming a stored procedure, function, view, or trigger will not change the name of the corresponding object name in the definition column of the sys.sql_modules catalog view. 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.
This is also true. However I found that when you run the alter script after making the rename, it corrects the name in the definition in the modules.
I have wondered how the SSMS interface does all of this automagically without using T-SQL. (Perhaps it runs an alter script each time you rename an SP using the interface? I don't know.) It would be interesting is MS were to publish what is happening behind the scenes when you do a SSMS rename.
sp_rename only change the name of user created objects in database. Renaming a stored procedure will not change the name of the corresponding object name in the definition column of the sys.sql_modules catalog view.
Therefore, we recommend that you do not rename this object type. Instead, drop and re-create the stored procedure with its new name.
even you should not use it use to rename to change to change the name of view, function,or trigger.
If you will try to use, it will rename it, but you will also get some warning message something like this:
Changing any part of an object name can break scripts and stored procedures.
For more information you can visit.
http://onlyforcoder.blogspot.in/2017/11/sprename-where-to-use-where-not-to-use.html
http://blog.sqlauthority.com/2008/08/26/sql-server-how-to-rename-a-column-name-or-table-name/