October 7, 2002 at 9:51 am
I noted that, as usual, MS say to do the publisher, distributor then the subscriber. Is this really necessary? The real risky server is the internet facing server, shich is a subscriber. Whats the risk of patching that, but not the Publisher/Distributor?
October 7, 2002 at 10:46 am
Usually does not happen but compatibility issue can arise. However, these usually show up in the first dozen or so custoemr and MS will pull the fix and repost a corrected version. You are still supposed to acknowledge that you need to make a full backup before applying the patch as MS is not blah, blah blah... Which is what the eula ill usually say.
"Don't roll your eyes at me. I will tape them in place." (Teacher on Boston Public)
October 7, 2002 at 2:41 pm
The reason often is that functionality in replication may break if you start with the subscriber.
Steve Jones
http://qa.sqlservercentral.com/columnists/sjones
Follow me on Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/way0utwest
Forum Etiquette: How to post data/code on a forum to get the best help
My Blog: www.voiceofthedba.com
October 9, 2002 at 10:41 am
Thank you very much!
October 9, 2002 at 4:00 pm
If it's a security related hot fix, I'd say that it's imortant to patch all servers. Biggest security issue is inside, not outside, and there are several major flaws in SQL Server (SP2), especially if attacker has access to the server, that could be used to compromise your servers.
--
Chris Hedgate @ Apptus Technologies (http://www.apptus.se)
Viewing 5 posts - 1 through 4 (of 4 total)
You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply