|
|
Posted by Greg D. Moore \(Strider\) on 06/02/05 04:25
"Joe Cool" <joecool@home.net> wrote in message
news:a06s91lb492bkus82046v2u3u4s4fmko62@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Jun 2005 13:49:16 -0400, "Marina" <someone@nospam.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> As you and others have asked "Why?" here's the answer. I am developing
> a VB.NET application that uses SQL as the database backend and I check
> the existance of all required tables when the application starts. If
> any tables are missing, I assume the database is corrupt and give the
> user the option of deleting the current corrupt database and
> recreating it. I open a connection to scan the database for the
> requied tables and iof the user wants to start over, I would like to
> close the connection and immediately open a connection to the master
> database and drop the application database. But with connection
> pooling, it appears that I will have to wait for 6 1/2 minutes (in my
> case) before I can do that. I would prefer to not have to wait.
>
> Yes, connection pooling is a good thing, but I would like to
> temporarily disable it in this case.
As Erland points out, you can do what you want w/o disabling connection
pooling.
But, my greater question is... while it may be "nice" you're checking for a
corrupt db, is this really worth it?
I mean SQL Server is fairly stable and if you're having this as a common
problem, you've got other issues to deal with.
Also, if the DB is corrupt, as a user, I'd probably want to RESTORE it from
a backup, not lose all my existing data.
I'll assume you have your reasons here, but I am curious.
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|