Posted by Joe Cool on 06/02/05 18:48

On Thu, 02 Jun 2005 01:25:56 GMT, "Greg D. Moore \(Strider\)"
<mooregr_deleteth1s@greenms.com> wrote:

>
>"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.


I just don't trust the user not go go mucking around with the
Enterprise Manager and accidentally screwing something up.

[Back to original message]