This is an unsupported configuration as per the docs
Mixing versions of SQL Server instances in the same AG is not supported outside of a rolling upgrade and should not exist in that state for extended periods of time as the upgrade should take place quickly. The other option for upgrading SQ...
Years later. +7 upvotes and 10,000 views. Now a "famous question."
Why does this happen all the time?
I think it's worth thinking about anyway. The downvotes in this system send an immediate negative feedback to the person asking the question (more often than not) and often different questions are hostility received, especially if self-answered. But in the end, if you wait long enough, those question very very frequently come out on top and become famous questions with tons of upvotes.
If you want to bend the rules put the extra effort into inventing a plausible reason why you might really not be able to use a windowing function — that's less frustrating for those trying to help who want to provide an answer.
Would a question pertaining to doc clarification also qualify as practical and based on actual problems? I mean, if I asked "what does the doc mean by this" and it wasn't related to an actual problem but just a casual reading of the docs, would that qualify?
I am confused after microsoft changed the documentation style.
https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/sql/database-engine/availability-groups/windows/active-secondaries-readable-secondary-replicas-always-on-availability-groups
Earlier we used to be able to change the version of sql server at the top ...
I can't understand this statement in Optimizing Data Size:
Declare columns with identical information in different tables with
identical data types, to speed up joins based on the corresponding
columns.
Can anyone describe this statement with example?
I guess the problem there is that again, that's just curiosity -- no? I mean what the documentation says is never a practical problem. The real problem they're trying to solve is the one they consult the documentation for?
Perhaps it shouldn't be surprising that I want to widen the scope of the site, that's kind of been my MO for a while. I didn't realize that the scope had the term "practical" in there, and I think it's probably even more problematic than "not basic" or whatever which was in the FAQ too.
depends what you mean by practical. I take it as 'a problem you are actually facing at work' or similar. That doesn't exclude problems with documentation.
It does exclude things that aren't problems though — "I have an excellent solution but I'm looking for an alternative" isn't really a problem that people often get motivated about helping other folk with.
@EvanCarroll you have to draw the line somewhere and that draws it nowhere
I don't think those questions are any help to anyone else — curiosity seems to be very personal and esoteric. Unlike actual problems people face that often are faced in a very similar way by lots of other people.
Very personal and esoteric, yeppp! But, alas, they do seem to help out a lot of other people. I mean, let's go with the absolute most trivial non-technical question I have, dba.stackexchange.com/questions/17691/…
Those aren't practical but 'acceptable in moderation according to meta — the proviso is that they have to be occasional and 'interesting' — ie not just interesting to the OP
Regarding the above. I will admit that you have chilled a bit now @EvanCarroll - you were like a bull in a china shop when you first arrived here. You have definitely grown as far as this site has concerned
I've moved on. I haven't really "grown". Now I just sit back and soak up the EXP from all my massively popular self answered questions that no one wanted. ;)
I'm doing rust and reverse engineering.
So it's more that I've mastered PostgreSQL and MySQL and got bored with MS SQL because it holds its secret too close and I haven't got good enough just yet to figure them all out.