Problems with transactional replication

Hello All!
Today I've found one strange problem ... I have tables like
something_another_2004_9 (so name_YEAR_MONTH) ... funny thing happened when
I got to the month 10,
I see that the insert/update/delete stored procedures are missing the last
digit in their name.
So, for the 2004_9 month I get sp_MSins_something_another_2004_9,
sp_MSupd_something_another_2004_9, etc .
But for the 2004_10 month I get sp_MSins_something_another_2004_1,
sp_MSupd_something_another_2004_1 ... where is the last 0!? Same happened
for 2004_11 table.
What could be the problem? Are the table names too long or what ?!
Thanks four your input!
Kind regards,
Dejan
can you post the exact names of the tables which are causing the problems
with stored procedure generation?
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Dejan Markic" <dejan@.akton.is> wrote in message
news:hy2fd.4744$F6.1274490@.news.siol.net...
> Hello All!
> Today I've found one strange problem ... I have tables like
> something_another_2004_9 (so name_YEAR_MONTH) ... funny thing happened
when
> I got to the month 10,
> I see that the insert/update/delete stored procedures are missing the last
> digit in their name.
> So, for the 2004_9 month I get sp_MSins_something_another_2004_9,
> sp_MSupd_something_another_2004_9, etc .
> But for the 2004_10 month I get sp_MSins_something_another_2004_1,
> sp_MSupd_something_another_2004_1 ... where is the last 0!? Same happened
> for 2004_11 table.
> What could be the problem? Are the table names too long or what ?!
> Thanks four your input!
> Kind regards,
> Dejan
>
>
|||Hello!
Sorry for the late response ...
Full table names are:
billing_record_2004_9, billing_record_2004_10 ...
Paul,
I see normal procs name (without missin last number) ... I don't know if
this makes any difference, but before I ran that I already 'repaired' this
by hand (renaming and creating new procs for this new tables). I'm just
afraid that this will happen again next month (12 = two letters ) Can I
check that somehow ? What could be the case here?
Kind regards,
Dejan
"Hilary Cotter" <hilary.cotter@.gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebe9KdouEHA.1404@.TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| can you post the exact names of the tables which are causing the problems
| with stored procedure generation?
|
| --
| Hilary Cotter
| Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
| http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
|
|
| "Dejan Markic" <dejan@.akton.is> wrote in message
| news:hy2fd.4744$F6.1274490@.news.siol.net...
| > Hello All!
| >
| > Today I've found one strange problem ... I have tables like
| > something_another_2004_9 (so name_YEAR_MONTH) ... funny thing happened
| when
| > I got to the month 10,
| > I see that the insert/update/delete stored procedures are missing the
last
| > digit in their name.
| > So, for the 2004_9 month I get sp_MSins_something_another_2004_9,
| > sp_MSupd_something_another_2004_9, etc .
| > But for the 2004_10 month I get sp_MSins_something_another_2004_1,
| > sp_MSupd_something_another_2004_1 ... where is the last 0!? Same
happened
| > for 2004_11 table.
| > What could be the problem? Are the table names too long or what ?!
| >
| > Thanks four your input!
| >
| > Kind regards,
| > Dejan
| >
| >
| >
| >
|
|