Invisible Replications

We have
Database A.
Database A Training
Database B
"Database A Training" was a copy of "Database A" 6 months ago.
Since then "Database A Training" has had replications set up to "Database B".
Last night a collegue decided that "Database A Training" needed updating and
so backed up "Database A" and then restored that backup over the top of
"Database A Training".
When I open the new "Database A Training" all the replications are gone.
This is not a problem as we were thinking of dispensing with most of them
anyway and the one I wanted is easy to recreate.
However when I now go to Replication Monitor all the old replications are
still showing and one of them is showing the big red X (OK, white X in red
circle) that shows something has failed.
When I right click - Delete I get the following message.
"SQL Server Enterprise Manager could not retrieve information about
publication 'XYZ'.
Error 21776: [SQL-DMO]The name 'XYZ' was not found in the TransPublications
collection. If the name is a qualified anem, use [] to separate various
parts of the name, and try again.
All I want to do is delete them and learn why this happened. I don't care
about recovering any information about them.
Your help is, as always, appreciated.
Derek
is this merge or transactional?
The best thing to do here is to restore the database again, this time using
the keep_replication switch. Then drop the publication using the GUI.
I'd also check the metadata tables to see if there is anything lingering
there.
You'll probably find some rows in syssubscriptions and sysmergesubscriptions
which you can delete.
Hilary Cotter
Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
"Derek" <Derek@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4FBE6B8B-8083-45DB-BD3F-6D9ACC1B8FE1@.microsoft.com...
> We have
> Database A.
> Database A Training
> Database B
> "Database A Training" was a copy of "Database A" 6 months ago.
> Since then "Database A Training" has had replications set up to "Database
B".
> Last night a collegue decided that "Database A Training" needed updating
and
> so backed up "Database A" and then restored that backup over the top of
> "Database A Training".
> When I open the new "Database A Training" all the replications are gone.
> This is not a problem as we were thinking of dispensing with most of them
> anyway and the one I wanted is easy to recreate.
> However when I now go to Replication Monitor all the old replications are
> still showing and one of them is showing the big red X (OK, white X in red
> circle) that shows something has failed.
> When I right click - Delete I get the following message.
> "SQL Server Enterprise Manager could not retrieve information about
> publication 'XYZ'.
> Error 21776: [SQL-DMO]The name 'XYZ' was not found in the
TransPublications
> collection. If the name is a qualified anem, use [] to separate various
> parts of the name, and try again.
> All I want to do is delete them and learn why this happened. I don't care
> about recovering any information about them.
> Your help is, as always, appreciated.
> Derek
|||Transactional. I'll let you know how this goes.
"Hilary Cotter" wrote:

> is this merge or transactional?
> The best thing to do here is to restore the database again, this time using
> the keep_replication switch. Then drop the publication using the GUI.
> I'd also check the metadata tables to see if there is anything lingering
> there.
> You'll probably find some rows in syssubscriptions and sysmergesubscriptions
> which you can delete.
> --
> Hilary Cotter
> Looking for a SQL Server replication book?
> http://www.nwsu.com/0974973602.html
>
> "Derek" <Derek@.discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:4FBE6B8B-8083-45DB-BD3F-6D9ACC1B8FE1@.microsoft.com...
> B".
> and
> TransPublications
>
>
|||syssubscriptions and sysmergesubscriptions didn't show anything.
However when I restored an old copy of the training database (that had the
replications), I could then delete them all.
Thanks for all your help.
Derek
"Derek" wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Transactional. I'll let you know how this goes.
> "Hilary Cotter" wrote: