connect to New instance on SQL Server

I have install a new instance of SQL Server and I can
connect to the new instance inside the network. But we
have users who coonect to SQL Server from Remote location
using VPN and they cannot connect to this new sql
instance, the error this 'server not found'.
They are able to connect to default instance.
Thanks in advance.
TomHow about if they use the Client Network Utility to set up an alias for the
server without a backslash in it and specify the port (if using TCP/IP).
Also make sure their MDAC version is 2.6 or higher and check whether the VPN
allows UDP 1434.
--
HTH
Jasper Smith (SQL Server MVP)
I support PASS - the definitive, global
community for SQL Server professionals -
http://www.sqlpass.org
"tom" <t@.gg.com> wrote in message
news:00e301c377ad$88a88960$a101280a@.phx.gbl...
I have install a new instance of SQL Server and I can
connect to the new instance inside the network. But we
have users who coonect to SQL Server from Remote location
using VPN and they cannot connect to this new sql
instance, the error this 'server not found'.
They are able to connect to default instance.
Thanks in advance.
Tom

connect database user to security login user

After restore off a database the user under security logins was not created.
The user under Database and users was created, but that user MUST bee the
same user under security logins, if i try to make a new user with same name
under logins, thats ok, but i cant connect to the database becuse the user
allready exists, i cant delete the user under the database. What to do? Is
there som way to connect a database user to a security login user. Its SQL
security and login.
/Per W.sp_change_users_login.
Also, you can transport the logins with the correct sid, search KB for sp_he
lp_revlogin.
Tibor Karaszi, SQL Server MVP
http://www.karaszi.com/sqlserver/default.asp
http://www.solidqualitylearning.com/
http://www.sqlug.se/
"Per W." <pwbuf@.tiscali.no> wrote in message news:GdMOd.98909$Vf.3877273@.news000.worldonlin
e.dk...
> After restore off a database the user under security logins was not create
d. The user under
> Database and users was created, but that user MUST bee the same user under
security logins, if i
> try to make a new user with same name under logins, thats ok, but i cant c
onnect to the database
> becuse the user allready exists, i cant delete the user under the database
. What to do? Is there
> som way to connect a database user to a security login user. Its SQL secur
ity and login.
>
> /Per W.
>|||The following will list all users whose SPID is not mapped to a valid login:
sp_change_users_login 'Report'
"Per W." <pwbuf@.tiscali.no> wrote in message
news:GdMOd.98909$Vf.3877273@.news000.worldonline.dk...
> After restore off a database the user under security logins was not
created.
> The user under Database and users was created, but that user MUST bee the
> same user under security logins, if i try to make a new user with same
name
> under logins, thats ok, but i cant connect to the database becuse the user
> allready exists, i cant delete the user under the database. What to do? Is
> there som way to connect a database user to a security login user. Its SQL
> security and login.
>
> /Per W.
>

Confused with security

I thought I understood what was happening - obviously not.
Here is my problem:
Using windows integrated security.
No users should have access to the table directly.
I have a UDF that I have granted select, insert, update, and delete on to a
created roll that has windows users added to it.
The user can select through the function ok. but when they try to insert,
they get an error complaining of lack of rights to insert.
I had to add insert rights to the table for the user to insert through the
function.
Is it becuse the function is a select statement, and it dynamically creates
the update, insert methods directly against the table and by-passes the
function and that is my problem?
Thanks for any clarification.
On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:03:22 GMT, Howard Carr wrote:

>I thought I understood what was happening - obviously not.
>Here is my problem:
>Using windows integrated security.
>No users should have access to the table directly.
>I have a UDF that I have granted select, insert, update, and delete on to a
>created roll that has windows users added to it.
>The user can select through the function ok. but when they try to insert,
>they get an error complaining of lack of rights to insert.
>I had to add insert rights to the table for the user to insert through the
>function.
>Is it becuse the function is a select statement, and it dynamically creates
>the update, insert methods directly against the table and by-passes the
>function and that is my problem?
>Thanks for any clarification.
>
Hi Howard,
Your guess is correct - welcome to the pitfalls of dynamic SQL.
If a stored procedure references a table owned by the same userid that
owns the stored procedure, no additional check for access right to that
table is made. Each user that has rights to execute the procedure can
access that table through that procedure. Other means of access to the
table still need explicit permissions for that user on the table!
Dynamic SQL is executed in a seperate environment, just as if the user
exeecuted the SQL from Query Analyzer. During execution, SQL is not aware
that this is started from a stored procedure. Therefor, the ownership
chain from procedure to table breaks when dynamic SQL is executed.
Best, Hugo
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)
|||Thanks so much Hugo, I thought I was really lost!
"Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
news:teo9j0l1fnknj0frfq3l0u6hgs2s5oh9bm@.4ax.com... [vbcol=seagreen]
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:03:22 GMT, Howard Carr wrote:
a[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
creates
> Hi Howard,
> Your guess is correct - welcome to the pitfalls of dynamic SQL.
> If a stored procedure references a table owned by the same userid that
> owns the stored procedure, no additional check for access right to that
> table is made. Each user that has rights to execute the procedure can
> access that table through that procedure. Other means of access to the
> table still need explicit permissions for that user on the table!
> Dynamic SQL is executed in a seperate environment, just as if the user
> exeecuted the SQL from Query Analyzer. During execution, SQL is not aware
> that this is started from a stored procedure. Therefor, the ownership
> chain from procedure to table breaks when dynamic SQL is executed.
> Best, Hugo
> --
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)

Confused with security

I thought I understood what was happening - obviously not.
Here is my problem:
Using windows integrated security.
No users should have access to the table directly.
I have a UDF that I have granted select, insert, update, and delete on to a
created roll that has windows users added to it.
The user can select through the function ok. but when they try to insert,
they get an error complaining of lack of rights to insert.
I had to add insert rights to the table for the user to insert through the
function.
Is it becuse the function is a select statement, and it dynamically creates
the update, insert methods directly against the table and by-passes the
function and that is my problem?
Thanks for any clarification.Check who owns the objects. Ownership chain may be broken
(see BOL). In short a person who does not have ownership
of the underlying object cannot get rights through a
view/function etc that they own.
>--Original Message--
>I thought I understood what was happening - obviously not.
>Here is my problem:
>Using windows integrated security.
>No users should have access to the table directly.
>I have a UDF that I have granted select, insert, update,
and delete on to a
>created roll that has windows users added to it.
>The user can select through the function ok. but when
they try to insert,
>they get an error complaining of lack of rights to insert.
>I had to add insert rights to the table for the user to
insert through the
>function.
>Is it becuse the function is a select statement, and it
dynamically creates
>the update, insert methods directly against the table and
by-passes the
>function and that is my problem?
>Thanks for any clarification.
>
>.
>|||On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:03:22 GMT, Howard Carr wrote:
>I thought I understood what was happening - obviously not.
>Here is my problem:
>Using windows integrated security.
>No users should have access to the table directly.
>I have a UDF that I have granted select, insert, update, and delete on to a
>created roll that has windows users added to it.
>The user can select through the function ok. but when they try to insert,
>they get an error complaining of lack of rights to insert.
>I had to add insert rights to the table for the user to insert through the
>function.
>Is it becuse the function is a select statement, and it dynamically creates
>the update, insert methods directly against the table and by-passes the
>function and that is my problem?
>Thanks for any clarification.
>
Hi Howard,
Your guess is correct - welcome to the pitfalls of dynamic SQL.
If a stored procedure references a table owned by the same userid that
owns the stored procedure, no additional check for access right to that
table is made. Each user that has rights to execute the procedure can
access that table through that procedure. Other means of access to the
table still need explicit permissions for that user on the table!
Dynamic SQL is executed in a seperate environment, just as if the user
exeecuted the SQL from Query Analyzer. During execution, SQL is not aware
that this is started from a stored procedure. Therefor, the ownership
chain from procedure to table breaks when dynamic SQL is executed.
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||Thanks so much Hugo, I thought I was really lost!
"Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
news:teo9j0l1fnknj0frfq3l0u6hgs2s5oh9bm@.4ax.com...
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:03:22 GMT, Howard Carr wrote:
> >I thought I understood what was happening - obviously not.
> >
> >Here is my problem:
> >
> >Using windows integrated security.
> >No users should have access to the table directly.
> >
> >I have a UDF that I have granted select, insert, update, and delete on to
a
> >created roll that has windows users added to it.
> >The user can select through the function ok. but when they try to insert,
> >they get an error complaining of lack of rights to insert.
> >I had to add insert rights to the table for the user to insert through
the
> >function.
> >Is it becuse the function is a select statement, and it dynamically
creates
> >the update, insert methods directly against the table and by-passes the
> >function and that is my problem?
> >
> >Thanks for any clarification.
> >
> Hi Howard,
> Your guess is correct - welcome to the pitfalls of dynamic SQL.
> If a stored procedure references a table owned by the same userid that
> owns the stored procedure, no additional check for access right to that
> table is made. Each user that has rights to execute the procedure can
> access that table through that procedure. Other means of access to the
> table still need explicit permissions for that user on the table!
> Dynamic SQL is executed in a seperate environment, just as if the user
> exeecuted the SQL from Query Analyzer. During execution, SQL is not aware
> that this is started from a stored procedure. Therefor, the ownership
> chain from procedure to table breaks when dynamic SQL is executed.
> Best, Hugo
> --
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)

Confused with security

I thought I understood what was happening - obviously not.
Here is my problem:
Using windows integrated security.
No users should have access to the table directly.
I have a UDF that I have granted select, insert, update, and delete on to a
created roll that has windows users added to it.
The user can select through the function ok. but when they try to insert,
they get an error complaining of lack of rights to insert.
I had to add insert rights to the table for the user to insert through the
function.
Is it becuse the function is a select statement, and it dynamically creates
the update, insert methods directly against the table and by-passes the
function and that is my problem?
Thanks for any clarification.On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:03:22 GMT, Howard Carr wrote:

>I thought I understood what was happening - obviously not.
>Here is my problem:
>Using windows integrated security.
>No users should have access to the table directly.
>I have a UDF that I have granted select, insert, update, and delete on to a
>created roll that has windows users added to it.
>The user can select through the function ok. but when they try to insert,
>they get an error complaining of lack of rights to insert.
>I had to add insert rights to the table for the user to insert through the
>function.
>Is it becuse the function is a select statement, and it dynamically creates
>the update, insert methods directly against the table and by-passes the
>function and that is my problem?
>Thanks for any clarification.
>
Hi Howard,
Your guess is correct - welcome to the pitfalls of dynamic SQL.
If a stored procedure references a table owned by the same userid that
owns the stored procedure, no additional check for access right to that
table is made. Each user that has rights to execute the procedure can
access that table through that procedure. Other means of access to the
table still need explicit permissions for that user on the table!
Dynamic SQL is executed in a seperate environment, just as if the user
exeecuted the SQL from Query Analyzer. During execution, SQL is not aware
that this is started from a stored procedure. Therefor, the ownership
chain from procedure to table breaks when dynamic SQL is executed.
Best, Hugo
--
(Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)|||Thanks so much Hugo, I thought I was really lost!
"Hugo Kornelis" <hugo@.pe_NO_rFact.in_SPAM_fo> wrote in message
news:teo9j0l1fnknj0frfq3l0u6hgs2s5oh9bm@.
4ax.com...
> On Tue, 31 Aug 2004 19:03:22 GMT, Howard Carr wrote:
>
a[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
creates[vbcol=seagreen]
> Hi Howard,
> Your guess is correct - welcome to the pitfalls of dynamic SQL.
> If a stored procedure references a table owned by the same userid that
> owns the stored procedure, no additional check for access right to that
> table is made. Each user that has rights to execute the procedure can
> access that table through that procedure. Other means of access to the
> table still need explicit permissions for that user on the table!
> Dynamic SQL is executed in a seperate environment, just as if the user
> exeecuted the SQL from Query Analyzer. During execution, SQL is not aware
> that this is started from a stored procedure. Therefor, the ownership
> chain from procedure to table breaks when dynamic SQL is executed.
> Best, Hugo
> --
> (Remove _NO_ and _SPAM_ to get my e-mail address)

Conflicts and String or Binary Data would be truncated

I have an application using SQL Server 2000 and Delphi
for the front end. I have 2 SQL Server, on each side of a
WAN and 15 offline users with Laptops that sync using
Merge replication. This app has been running for about 6
months now. Lately, I am getting a few conflicts saying
that the row was inserted or updated at the Laptop, but
could not be updated or inserted at the Server - String
or Binary Data would be truncated. The Merge agent
reports no errors, saying that the session succeeded. I
have a Trigger that updates a Datestamp field, but I have
the "NOT FOR REPLICATION" line at the top. I do not get
the error using the app, only when the user replicates.
Out of 15 users, 3 are getting the message in the
conflicts screen.
Any ideas.
Thanks,
John,
2 possibilities I can think of:
are the schemas identical on publisher and subscribers? If you have done a
nosync subscription with different schemas, this could be the cause.
If the schemas are the same, then there is a known issue if you are not yet
on sp3:
http://support.microsoft.com/default...ticle%3D319258
HTH,
Paul Ibison
|||Well we are at service pack 3 (I had them go into query
analyzer)and the schemas seem to be identical. It only
seems to happen to 3 of our laptop users and no on e els
gets the errors

>--Original Message--
>John,
>2 possibilities I can think of:
>
>are the schemas identical on publisher and subscribers?
If you have done a
>nosync subscription with different schemas, this could
be the cause.
>If the schemas are the same, then there is a known issue
if you are not yet
>on sp3:
>http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=%
2Fservicedesks%2Fbin%2Fkbsearch.asp%3FArticle%3D31 9258
>HTH,
>Paul Ibison
>
>.
>
|||OK - can you try using DATALENGTH on hte problematic row's text data to
compare to the publisher. Also, can you check that the collations are the
same between publisher and subscriber (at column level).
Regards,
Paul Ibison
|||I will look into this on Monday. I really appreciate
your input.
Thank You
>--Original Message--
>OK - can you try using DATALENGTH on hte problematic
row's text data to
>compare to the publisher. Also, can you check that the
collations are the
>same between publisher and subscriber (at column level).
>Regards,
>Paul Ibison
>
>.
>

Conflicts and "String and Binary Datawould be truncated"

I have an application using SQL Server 2000 and Delphi
for the front end. I have 2 SQL Server, on each side of a
WAN and 15 offline users with Laptops that sync using
Merge replication. This app has been running successfully
for about 6 months now.
Lately, I am getting a few conflicts from 3 of the 15
offline users saying that the row was inserted or updated
at the Laptop, but could not be updated or inserted at
the Server - String or Binary Data would be truncated.
The Merge agent reports no errors, saying that the
session succeeded. I have a Trigger that updates a
Datestamp field when the app makes an update, but I have
the "NOT FOR REPLICATION" line at the top. I do not get
the error using the app, only when the selected users
replicates. Out of 15 users, 3 are getting the message in
the conflicts screen.
Thanks for the Help.
Steve
Steve,
it could be a service pack issue. Have a look at
http://support.microsoft.com/default...icle%3D319258.
Also, you could do some logging from the trigger to a separate table, just
to confirm that it is/isn't firing during the replication process.
HTH,
Paul Ibison

Conflict Table - What does this error mean? Does the Conflict get cleared ?

I have two publications set up on my db, one for ordinary users that
employs horizontal/vertical filters, the other for admins with no
filters. I noticed over a period of time records going missing and when
I checked my conflict tables I received the following:
"The same column(s) of the same row was updated at both 'ServerA' and
'user - -129404259'. The resolver chose the update from 'ServerA' as
the winner."
1. Can someone explain what exactly this means and how I can avoid it?
The MS explaination of "Changes are made to the same column(s) in the
same row (using INSERT, UPDATE or DELETE statements) in more than one
copy, with column-level conflict tracking in effect." isn't that clear
to me.
2. Do the Conflict Tables every get cleared. For example, if I had an
issue 1 month ago and didn't check my conflict tables is there any
chance they could have been cleared. Reason I'm asking is that I have
records which went missing over a couple of months back and there's no
record in the conflicts table.
Thanks.
Hello Ciaran,
To understand the meaning of the error message, you need to understand how
Merge Replication works. Please read the following topic:
How Merge Replication Works
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/de...us/replsql/rep
ltypes_30z7.asp
Please also refer to the "Microsoft Replication Conflict Viewer, Merge
Publication" topic and "Microsoft Replication Conflict Viewer, Updatable
Subscriptions" topic in SQL books online(BOL)
Update conflict happens when the same data is changed at two locations. The
message means Update conflict happened. Conflicts are automatically
resolved using the conflict resolver initially selected when the article
was created. As conflicts are resolved during synchronization, the data
from the losing row is written to a conflict table. The Replication
Conflict Viewer allows you to review these conflict records and,
potentially, modify your data.
When you resolve a conflict using Replication Conflict Viewer, you can
choose to accept the original resolution or submit an update to the data
based on the winning or losing row. In each instance, the logged conflict
row is deleted from the conflict table. Thereafter, you should periodically
review conflicts to help reduce the size of the conflict tracking tables.
When creating a new merge publication using sp_addmergepublication, you can
specify the conflict retention period using @.conflict_retention parameter.
Please refer to the following information in the sp_addmergepublication
topic in BOL:
[@.conflict_retention = ] conflict_retention
Specifies the retention period, in days, for which conflicts are retained.
conflict_retention is int, with a default of 14 days before the conflict
row is purged from the conflict table.
That is, by default, the conflict retention period is 14 days. The conflict
row is purged from the conflict table after 14 days.
I hope above information is helpful.
Sophie Guo
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
================================================== ===
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
|||Thanks for the reply Sophie, this explains why the conflict table was
being cleared.
Regarding the conflict happening I still can't understand why this is
happening or more importantly what I can do to fix it. I do have an
INSTEAD OF UPDATE/INSERT Trigger on the table I'm syncing with and my
only guess is that this is causing the conflict to occur.
Any ideas on what type of issues can cause this conflict or a pointer
to some samples
is much appreciated.
|||Hello Ciaran,
What replication did you create? Are both sides trying to update the same
table when the conflict occurs? If both 'ServerA' and 'user - -129404259'
try to update the same table at the same time, this behavior is normal.
If the issue occurs although there are no updates on both sides, to isolate
the issue, I recommend you perform the following steps:
1. Create a new test database.
2. Create the related tables in the new database and insert some data into
it.
3. Create a new replication locally and check if you can reproduce the
issue.
If you can reproduce the issue, please post here the detailed steps and the
related data. I will check if I can reproduce the issue on my side.
Please know that replication issues tend to be very complex and hard to
troubleshoot in newsgroups. If you need further assistance, I recommend
that you open a Support incident with Microsoft Customer Service and
Support (CSS) so that a dedicated Support Professional can work with you in
a more timely and efficient manner. If you need any help in this regard,
please let me know.
For a complete list of Microsoft Product Support Services phone numbers,
please go to the following address on the World Wide Web:
<http://support.microsoft.com/directory/overview.asp>
If you are outside the US please see http://support.microsoft.com for
regional support phone numbers.
If anything is unclear, get in touch.
Sophie Guo
Microsoft Online Partner Support
Get Secure! - www.microsoft.com/security
================================================== ===
When responding to posts, please "Reply to Group" via your newsreader so
that others may learn and benefit from your issue.
================================================== ===
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

Configuring Users - best Practices

Hello All,
I need to find out the best practices approach for user configuration in SQL
Reporting Services. I have teams of developers, who would be using VS.NET
development and deploying using VS.NET. Whats the best approach I could take
for development...Ideally I would like each team of users to have a folder
and so that they could deploy the reports only to those folders. Also how do
I set VS.NET to deploy a specifc sub folder.
Any thoughts or suggestions would be of good help.
Thanks,
ChrisYou can't deploy to a SubFolder in RS2K. Deployment from VS takes your
project name and uses it when you deploy. Only get one level.
There is a My Report folder you can turn on using the Report Manager under
system settings, but not sure that'll help you solve the problem you've
described.
If you need more, most straight forward approach is to go into Report
Manager after you deploy and move things around. Either that or use Report
Manager to 1st create the directory structure (folders / subfolders)
desired, then as Content Manager use the Upload File button on the tool bar
from within the subfolder to upload your reports.
If you find this to be burdensome, perhaps consider creating a VB script
like the one at
http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/en-us/rsamples/htm/rss_sampleapps_v1_1apd.asp
to automate the deployment process. Note, you could also do this
programmatically using the RS2K SOAP API. Perhaps as a program or daemon
that traverses a directory structure looking for .rdl files and then creates
the equivalent folders in RS to upload the reports to.
--
-- "This posting is provided 'AS IS' with no warranties, and confers no
rights."
jhmiller@.online.microsoft.com
"Christopher Pragash" <chrispragash@.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:uyCnuc6mEHA.1304@.TK2MSFTNGP09.phx.gbl...
> Hello All,
> I need to find out the best practices approach for user configuration in
> SQL
> Reporting Services. I have teams of developers, who would be using VS.NET
> development and deploying using VS.NET. Whats the best approach I could
> take
> for development...Ideally I would like each team of users to have a folder
> and so that they could deploy the reports only to those folders. Also how
> do
> I set VS.NET to deploy a specifc sub folder.
> Any thoughts or suggestions would be of good help.
> Thanks,
> Chris
>|||John H. Miller wrote:
> You can't deploy to a SubFolder in RS2K. Deployment from VS takes
> your project name and uses it when you deploy. Only get one level.
I don't think that's correct, John. I am able to deploy to any folder I
want in RS2K (SP1) by setting the TargetFolder property under Deployment in
the project's Property Pages.
I would think Chris could set up a separate folder for each developer and
set up permissions that allow a developer to publish only to his/her own
folder. Each developer would simply set the TargetFolder to the virtual
path to his/her folder.
--
Regards,
Jake Marx
MS MVP - Excel
www.longhead.com
[please keep replies in the newsgroup - email address unmonitored]|||Christopher Pragash wrote:
> Hello All,
> I need to find out the best practices approach for user configuration
in SQL
> Reporting Services. I have teams of developers, who would be using
VS.NET
> development and deploying using VS.NET. Whats the best approach I
could take
> for development...Ideally I would like each team of users to have a
folder
> and so that they could deploy the reports only to those folders.
you can:
* create separate security groups containing the various teams of
developers
* create the various target folders on the report server
* assign the pertinent security group to the 'Content Manager' role
(using Report Manager is the easiest way to do this)
the above assumes all users are in a single domain and that you have
the ability to create groups. if not, you can use report manager once
again to create the folders and then add each developer individually to
the content manager role.
> Also how do I set VS.NET to deploy a specifc sub folder.
once you have created a BI project in the VS designer, you right-click
the project and select properties. from there, you can figure the
appropriate subfolder to deploy to, as well as the target server.
hope this helps.
cheers,
~stuart|||John H. Miller:
> You can't deploy to a SubFolder in RS2K. Deployment from VS takes
> your project name and uses it when you deploy. Only get one level.
Jake Marx:
<< I don't think that's correct, John. I am able to deploy to any
folder I
want in RS2K (SP1) by setting the TargetFolder property under
Deployment in
the project's Property Pages. >>
Jake is correct. You can set the targetfolder property to be
arbitrarily deep. if the directory structure doesn't exist, it will be
created on the first deploy.

Configuring users

Hi,
I am connecting to sql server 2000 from an Access 2000 project. I want to
have certain users edit a stored procedure. I can give them execute
permission but this doesn't allow them edit. I don't want to give them owner
permissions on the sp.
How do I allow them edit this sp only?
Thanks
Tom
Currently only the owner, the DB owner or someone with system administration
permissions can alter an sp...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Tom Swanick" <tom.swanick@.activant.com> wrote in message
news:OFRuinn5EHA.2876@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am connecting to sql server 2000 from an Access 2000 project. I want to
> have certain users edit a stored procedure. I can give them execute
> permission but this doesn't allow them edit. I don't want to give them
owner
> permissions on the sp.
> How do I allow them edit this sp only?
> Thanks
> Tom
>
|||Or db_ddladmin; however, this will also give them edit permissions on all
objects in the database.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas

"Wayne Snyder" <wayne.nospam.snyder@.mariner-usa.com> wrote in message
news:eIaw0Jp5EHA.1408@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Currently only the owner, the DB owner or someone with system administration
permissions can alter an sp...
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Tom Swanick" <tom.swanick@.activant.com> wrote in message
news:OFRuinn5EHA.2876@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am connecting to sql server 2000 from an Access 2000 project. I want to
> have certain users edit a stored procedure. I can give them execute
> permission but this doesn't allow them edit. I don't want to give them
owner
> permissions on the sp.
> How do I allow them edit this sp only?
> Thanks
> Tom
>

Configuring users

Hi,
I am connecting to sql server 2000 from an Access 2000 project. I want to
have certain users edit a stored procedure. I can give them execute
permission but this doesn't allow them edit. I don't want to give them owner
permissions on the sp.
How do I allow them edit this sp only?
Thanks
TomCurrently only the owner, the DB owner or someone with system administration
permissions can alter an sp...
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Tom Swanick" <tom.swanick@.activant.com> wrote in message
news:OFRuinn5EHA.2876@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am connecting to sql server 2000 from an Access 2000 project. I want to
> have certain users edit a stored procedure. I can give them execute
> permission but this doesn't allow them edit. I don't want to give them
owner
> permissions on the sp.
> How do I allow them edit this sp only?
> Thanks
> Tom
>|||Or db_ddladmin; however, this will also give them edit permissions on all
objects in the database.
Sincerely,
Anthony Thomas
"Wayne Snyder" <wayne.nospam.snyder@.mariner-usa.com> wrote in message
news:eIaw0Jp5EHA.1408@.TK2MSFTNGP10.phx.gbl...
Currently only the owner, the DB owner or someone with system administration
permissions can alter an sp...
--
Wayne Snyder, MCDBA, SQL Server MVP
Mariner, Charlotte, NC
www.mariner-usa.com
(Please respond only to the newsgroups.)
I support the Professional Association of SQL Server (PASS) and it's
community of SQL Server professionals.
www.sqlpass.org
"Tom Swanick" <tom.swanick@.activant.com> wrote in message
news:OFRuinn5EHA.2876@.TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl...
> Hi,
> I am connecting to sql server 2000 from an Access 2000 project. I want to
> have certain users edit a stored procedure. I can give them execute
> permission but this doesn't allow them edit. I don't want to give them
owner
> permissions on the sp.
> How do I allow them edit this sp only?
> Thanks
> Tom
>

Configuring access

How can I let all domain users run reports without adding them one by one
into Report Manager?
ThanksAdd <DOMAIN>\Domain Users and grant Browse Rights.
Or better yet, create a security group that is allowed to view reports and
add this group to the list of users. I.e. if your group was called
"ReportUsers" and the name of my domain is WORKHERE then you would add:
WORKHERE\ReportUsers
=-Chris
"Mark Goldin" <mgoldin@.ufandd.com> wrote in message
news:evt7ufc%23GHA.3352@.TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...
> How can I let all domain users run reports without adding them one by one
> into Report Manager?
> Thanks
>