« first day (4292 days earlier)      last day (60 days later) » 

5:43 AM
I should change it to
Zikato-MostlyTired
 
6:18 AM
Hm. Maybe if Sean doesn't change voluntarily, we should vote on a correct new name
Sadly, I think "mostly retarded" would be CoC violation
And wildly inaccurate, of course
 
mostly retried
Also, good morning
 
morning
mostly accurate, perhaps
 
 
1 hour later…
7:35 AM
@PaulWhite Mostly Steak
2
 
A chairde - Morning all!
@ErikDarling - you're up late?
Or very, very early?
 
@ErikDarling ha!
 
8:32 AM
Woke up randomly
Will eventually doze back off
 
good morning
does anyone have any idea about what's wrong with my privilege setup (in Synapse, but probably it's the same in plain SQL Server as well), when:
- there is a schema owned by a custom DB role
- there is an AD group being a member of this role
- another AD user is a member of the aforementioned AD group
- this user can drop a table in the schema, but cannot create it again
or should I ask a real question over there
the role has ALTER and CONTROL privileges over the schema
who was that
 
8:52 AM
The threshold is 1.5 and doesn't change. When the fileshare went down, you had 2 >1.5 (so AG online). When the 2nd node went down, you had 1 < 1.5 (so AG offline). — ypercubeᵀᴹ 2 mins ago
feeling adventurous today to provide free (and probably wrong) advice in comments.
 
🤔
 
9:09 AM
Feel free to delete that comment, Paul. Especially if it's incorrect.
 
I wouldn't know.
AGs are something I try very hard to avoid entirely.
 
0
Q: User can drop table from a schema, but cannot create one

dezsoIn an Azure Synapse dedicated SQL pool I have the following setup: -- a custom DB role to manage privileges CREATE ROLE [owner]; -- there is a schema owned by this role CREATE SCHEMA [myschema] AUTHORIZATION [owner]; -- an Azure AD group to allow its members to log in CREATE USER [radish] FROM ...

for the starrer with love
 
Nice question
 
probably the tags are not so nice, due to my limited understanding if this would be the same in proper SQL Server as well
 
tags, meh
you could add I guess, maybe too
 
9:23 AM
👍
 
9:43 AM
@dezso can they drop a table they created themselves? Or drop a table someone else created?
 
well, the table I could drop was created by myself, but with more power
to test the latter, I'll need to ask someone to do that
 
just an idea that your scenario (cannot create table, add admin role, can create table, remove admin role, able to drop THAT table) may mean that since you created the table, you are owner so still be able to drop it.
 
yeah, that can be
however, the schema is also owned by a role I am a member of (indirectly, through the AD group membership - and this also can be a point where I am wrong)
 
10:04 AM
well:
> By default, when developers create objects in a schema, the objects are owned by the security principal that owns the schema, not the developer.
 
10:44 AM
@ErikDarling Yeah, I think most/all of the people causing a problem for me in SE have since left SE for new companies. I can change my name.
@PaulWhite is it though? 🤔
Ok, I changed it back, but I'm open to new name suggestions.
 
11:37 AM
@SeanGallardy was always partial to Sean Lardygal
 
12:05 PM
Probably also a CoC violation
 
12:20 PM
sounds like native tongue to me
 
mmm hmm
 
1:17 PM
> October 5th marks the day ‘Dr. No,’ the first movie of the James Bond franchise, made its world premiere in 1962.
Sixty years ago.
 
and it's still giving us giggles
 
things were better in the old times
 
sure were
james bond had a proper watch back then
this question is mutating: dba.stackexchange.com/q/317857/32281
 
@ErikDarling ha ha very true
@ErikDarling people do get themselves in a knot, don't they
 
perhaps they need to master thinking like the engine
 
1:28 PM
an impossible goal, surely
especially if the links don't work
 
linking like microsoft
 
yeah
I can sort of see the issue. IN is expanded to an OR, which is a disjunction, so not immediately index-friendly.
 
i usually only see that when there's not an index to help it anyway
 
From a certain point of view.
Yes, I'm thinking about the sorts of things they might have read.
I'm too tired to write an answer now. Might have a go in the morning if it's still needed.
It might've mutated into a question about squirrels by then.
 
hah
well, people are nuts
i'm going to write a crappy answer
@PaulWhite apologies if all the hard work wore you out
 
1:37 PM
@ErikDarling Oh no, that was the fun part of my day
I had a lot of paperwork and routine tasks to take care of
Tedious and exhausting
 
paperwork!
are you getting divorced?
 
Ha ha ha no. Six-monthly General Sales Tax etc. That sort of thing.
Heaps of stuff
None of it fun
So, now I go to sleep
 
good night, you princes of aotearoa
 
 
1 hour later…
2:47 PM
@ErikDarling nuts and squirrels, those match nicely
 
@ErikDarling This reminds me - @PaulWhite have you used your "Recorded Class Season Pass: Masters Classes" yet?
 
 
7 hours later…
10:02 PM
@Zikato Not yet. I keep meaning to.
 

« first day (4292 days earlier)      last day (60 days later) »