What is the difference between "db_owner" and "the user that owns the database" in SQL Server 2000? -

-

i'm trying better understand why 1 of our database update scripts failed work @ particular customer site, , narrowed down (i think) database ownership , roles.

disclaimer: i'm waiting hear customer's dba can tell if upgraded sql database , can @ database. i'm thinking sql 2000 sql 2005 conversion might have hosed our scripts if our applications's database login converted schema, because referencing dbo in few places in update script.

anyway, i've been trying find better explanation of database ownership , roles , how impacts owner database object assigned when don't explicitly specify owner in t-sql statement. example, our update scripts typically create table foo instead of create table dbo.foo or else, found few explicitly using dbo, , ones causing problems @ moment (only 1 customer).

i found this article (specific sql server 2000), table on page confusing. mentions db_owner , "owns database" 2 distinct possibilities role user can have.

for example, table states if user sam, in db_owner role, runs query create table [test3](abc int), owned sam.

it mentions if user sue, "owns database" (sic), runs same query, owned dbo.

wouldn't db_owner , "owns database" same thing? table implies there difference between "being in db_owner role" , "being owner of database." but, if that's, true, mean "own database" if it's other being member of db_owner role?

no, db_owner , owner of database not same. dbo user , db_owner database role. databases owned logins. whatever login owns database aliased dbo inside database. can change database owner using sp_changedbowner system stored procedure.

all objects in database owned user. users members of db_owner role, among other permissions, allowed create objects owned dbo. if user not member of db_owner, has create permissions (e.g. create table), objects create owned user created them. can change ownership of object using sp_changeobjectowner system stored procedure.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

javascript - Enclosure Memory Copies -

-
function myclass() { //lots , lots of vars , code here. this.bar = function() { //do numerous enclosed myclass vars } this.foo = function() { alert('hello'); //don't enclosed variables. } } each instance of myclass gets own copy of bar , foo, why prototyped methods use less memory. however, know more memory use of inner methods. it seems obvious me (1) below must true. agree? not distinct myclass instances have own distinct copies of bar, must have own distinct copies of myclass enclosure. (or else how bar method keep myclass variables straight on per instance basis?) now (2) question i'm after. since inner foo method doesn't use in myclass enclosure natural qustion is: javascript smart enough not keep myclass enclosure in memory use of foo? this depend entirely on implementation not language. naive implementations keep far more around others. answer true e.g. v8 (chrome's js engine) may not true spider...
Read more

php - Replacing tags in braces, even nested tags, with regex -

-
example preg_replace('/\{[a-za-z.,\(\)0-9]+\}/', 'replaced', 'lorem ipsum dolor sit {tag1({tag2()})}, consectetur adipiscing elit.'); the result: lorem ipsum dolor sit {tag1(replaced)}, consectetur adipiscing elit. question as can see "tag2" has been replaced, want replace "tag1" know how can this? (in cases might this: {tag1({tag2({tag3()})})}) , on.) btw using preg_replace_callback, easier show preg_replace here site can test code: http://www.spaweditor.com/scripts/regex/index.php you need add curly braces character set. here's pattern used: /\{[a-za-z.,\(\)\{\}0-9]+\}/ and here result: "lorem ipsum dolor sit replaced, consectetur adipiscing elit."
Read more