The New Table Synchronization Paradigm in Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013 R2

Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013 R2 was dispatched with a brand new feature that introduces big challenges to all of the Microsoft Dynamics NAV channel: Multitenancy. In simple words, multitenancy allows partners to deal with hosting scenarios on-premises and in cloud services in an easier and more flexible way than in the past.

Before Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013 R2, partners and customers could only use a single-tenant scenario (here also called Legacy mode).

Below a short explanation how table synchronization used to work in earlier versions.

Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2009 / Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013

  1. At object import/compile, C/SIDE checks the Object Metadata version in working memory and compares it to the version in Object Metadata table to decide if and what kind of change is made.
  2. Schema changes are DIRECTLY APPLIED to the SQL Server database by C/SIDE if there is no breaking schema change, otherwise an error will be thrown by C/SIDE depending on SQL Server error catch.
  3. Object Change Listener is checking for changes in metadata, then updating Microsoft Dynamics NAV Server Cache with data from Object Metadata table if the change was detected.

A synchronization failure would typically be reported with an error like “The Object Metadata does not exist. Identification and values … “ when running the Microsoft Dynamics NAV Windows client.

The multitenancy feature has also changed the design how Microsoft Dynamics NAV developers has to deal with object changes, overall related to table objects. Multitenancy implies that the table structure definition has to be stored in the application database and this needs to be applied on one or more separate storage databases called Tenants. From a development perspective, this means that any modification that are made to a table object in C/SIDE are NOT DIRECTLY applied to the SQL Server structure but there is a need of performing a secondary action to apply and made persistent these modification at SQL Server side: this process is called Synchronization. Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013 R2, then, comes with a time decoupling between table metadata creation (C/SIDE) and data structure changes (SQL Server).

In order to simplify the current design, the Microsoft Dynamics NAV development team decided to handle single- and multitenant scenarios in the same way (roughly speaking a single-tenant / Legacy mode is handled as a multitenant scenario with a single tenant database constantly mounted against an application database).

Below a short explanation how this is working in practice.

Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013 R2


  • Single-tenancy / Legacy mode
  • “Prevent data loss from table changes” = Yes (default):


  1. At object import/compile, C/SIDE checks the Object Metadata version in working memory and compares it to the version in Object Metadata table to decide if and what kind of change is made. (Same as in Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2009 and Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013)
  2. C/SIDE then CALLS THE Microsoft Dynamics NAV Server to check for breaking schema changes in SQL Server structure.
    If C/SIDE is unable to call the Microsoft Dynamics NAV Server or if a breaking schema change is attempted (action that cannot performed due to the current SQL Server structure such as deleting a field containing data): a C/SIDE error is reported accordingly and changes to Object Metadata table will not be committed.
    If it is evaluated as not attempting a breaking schema change in SQL Server then metadata from C/SIDE working memory is saved and committed to Object Metadata table.
  3. When prompting for SYNCHRONIZATION, Microsoft Dynamics NAV Server then compares Object Metadata table with Object Metadata Snapshot table content. Any difference in the value for the “Hash” field is a flag to Microsoft Dynamics NAV Server that a change exists and should be subsequently applied physically SQL Server side as structural changes.

Prompting for Synchronization happens when

-         Performing ANY Microsoft Dynamics NAV client action.

For example, if a user opens a Microsoft Dynamics  NAV Windows client, then Microsoft Dynamics NAV Server is starting applying the relevant structure changes to SQL Server, and the Microsoft Dynamics NAV Windows client is not shown until all the changes are done on SQL Server side.


-         Running the Sync-NAVTenant Windows PowerShell cmdlet.


  • Single-tenancy / Legacy mode
  • “Prevent data loss from table changes” = No (Manually opted, not persistent)


Setting the “Prevent data loss from table changes” C/SIDE switch to “No” has been intended to be used as last resource in a pure multitenancy scenario and in Test or Staging environments when partners does not have any business data database mounted against the application database. All other usages that deviate from this statement might lead to unpredictable results and even undesired data loss scenarios in upgrades or, even worse, production environments.

Never change for any reason this parameter to “No” when developing against a single-tenant / Legacy mode database.

  1. At object import/compile: C/SIDE checks the Object Metadata version in working memory and compares it to the version in Object Metadata table to decide if and what kind of change is made. (Same as in Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2009 and Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013)
  2. C/SIDE DOES NOT CHECK FOR ANY BREAKING SCHEMA CHANGES IN SQL SERVER but simply FORCES COMMIT of metadata from C/SIDE cache TO the Object Metadata table.
  3. When prompting for SYNCHRONIZATION, Microsoft Dynamics NAV Server then compares Object Metadata table with Object Metadata Snapshot table content. Any difference in the value for the “Hash” field is a flag to Microsoft Dynamics NAV Server that a change exists and should be subsequently applied physically SQL Server side as structural changes.

Since no validation is made against SQL Server (“Prevent data loss from table changes” was set to “No”) there might be chances that this will result in:

  • Data Loss
    There are few specific cases where data is dropped in this scenario:
    • The primary key is detected as being no longer unique
    • Data per Company is changed from Yes to No and more than one company contains data
    • One or more fields are deleted
    • One or more field data type is/are changed
  • Missing Synchronization
    Activities cannot be completed since SQL Server prevents these actions that would break the data structure and therefore no Microsoft Dynamics NAV Windows client or Web client can connect to the database. The partner or customer has to resolve these missing synchronization issues before moving forward or fall back to a backup where these issues does no longer exists


  • Multitenancy
  • “Prevent data loss from table changes” = Yes (default):

Same as Scenario 1 for point 1. and point 2.

When prompting for SYNCHRONIZATION, changes will be triggered and applied to the SQL Server data structure.

Prompting for synchronization in a pure multitenant deployment happens when

-         Performing ANY Microsoft Dynamics NAV client action


-         Running the Sync-NAVTenant Windows PowerShell cmdlet


-         Mounting a tenant database


Based on the scenario depicted above, there might be risks of data loss and/or missing synchronization issues if handling C/SIDE development (namely dealing with Table objects) in a way that deviate by the prospected paradigm.

Data loss issues:

These might arise typically in one of the following scenarios:

  • Direct removal of rows from the Object Metadata table in SQL Server
  • Stretched / Borderline scenarios that implement platform files with a Build No. lower than 36281 KB 2934571 as described in this blog post.


Synchronization issues:

These might arise typically in one of the following scenarios:

  • The Microsoft Dynamics NAV Server service account has insufficient permissions
    The service account must be added to “db owner” SQL Server role for the Microsoft Dynamics NAV tenant Database.
  • Stretched / Borderline scenarios that implement platform files with a Build No. lower than 36281 KB 2934571 as described in this blog post.
    With a lower build number, you might get into one of the following scenarios:
    • When several developers commit changes at the same time in the same database / tenant while synchronization is running, this might lead to metadata corruption. (Object Metadata table now is locked for committing  changes).
    • Doing actions like FOB Import > Replace > SaveAs  and then Import again the saved FOB was causing a metadata corruption.
  • SQL Connection Timeout meanwhile performing an operation, such as when SQL Server schema changes require drop and build of indexes on large tables.
    To resolve this issue it is necessary to increment the following parameter in the Microsoft Dynamics NAV Server CustomSettings.config file
     <add key="SqlCommandTimeout" value="10:00:00" />

Development Environment best practice

thinking about potential data loss and synchronization issues is a brand new big challenge in the development environment, and so some consideration and following best practice might be advisable. These applies to developing solutions for both single- and multitenant deployments.

  1. Do not use Build No. lower than than 36310 KB 2934572
    As a partner, you take this as the "RTM Build No." starting point for NAV 2013 R2 and deploy this platform hotfix in the future projects while you also convert existing installations.
    NOTE: As per common best practice, we recommend that you download / request / test and deploy the latest platform hotfix for Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013 R2. This will contain correction for minor issues not directly or just slightly related to synchronization scenarios.
  2. Never-ever change “Prevent data loss from table changes” to “No”.
    This have been noticed as one of the major source of potential data loss and missing synchronization for NAV 2013 R2 databases.
  3. Make sure that the Microsoft Dynamics NAV Server service account has been granted the “db owner” role in SQL Server.
  4. Increment the SQL Server Command Timeout parameter in the Microsoft Dynamics NAV Server configuration file that you use in development to a very high value (such as 10:00:00)
  5. For large Microsoft Dynamics NAV objects OR a high number of table modifications, do NOT use a Microsoft Dynamics NAV client action to prompt for synchronization but it is warmly preferable to use the Sync-NAVTenant Windows PowerShell cmdlet. (This is a typical scenario related to upgrades).
  6. For big batch of FOB files that are making a high number of table modifications, be sure to have this tested on a safe staging environment and import, where possible, the Table Objects in smaller chunks and synchronize them after importing every single chunk of Microsoft Dynamics NAV objects.
  7. For important changes in several table structures, such as when upgrading from previous version, it would be good to run a SQL Server Profiler trace after prompting for synchronization to check what is running on the SQL Server side and keep the synchronization monitored until it ends.

Recommended Events:

  • SP:StmtCompleted
  • SQL:StmtCompleted

Recommended Column Filters:

  • DatabaseName   Like <DatabaseName>
  • TextData       Not Like  SELECT %

Bottom line. Worth mentioning that if a Microsoft Dynamics NAV Client hang / disconnect happens due to a missing synchronization issue or there were a synchronization transaction running behind the transaction rollback SQL Server side will take a higher amount of time in comparison with the same committed transaction, depending on the type of changes, resources available, etc.

Just in case you fall back in this situation, it is warmly advisable to do not stop nor restart Microsoft Dynamics NAV Server and check through a SQL Server Profiler trace and/or via SQL Server Management Studio if the transaction has successfully rollback.

Another blog post will follow this one, related to synchronization challenges and best practice while upgrading to Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013 R2 from previous versions.


These postings are provided "AS IS" with no warranties and confer no rights. You assume all risk for your use.


Gerard Conroy - Microsoft Dynamics UK

Abdelrahman Erlebach - Microsoft Dynamics Germany

Duilio Tacconi - Microsoft Dynamics Italy

Jasminka Thunes - Microsoft Dynamics Norway                   

Microsoft Customer Service and Support (CSS) EMEA


A special thanks to Jorge Alberto Torres & Jesper Falkebo from the Microsoft Dynamics NAV development team

Comments (34)

  1. NAV Anwender says:

    Also wenn ich die lächerlichen Hinweise unter "Development Environment best practice" lese kann ich nur den Schluss ziehen dass NAV 2013 R2 ganz offensichtlich eine Fehlentwicklung ist & bleibt. Tabellen nur noch einzeln importieren? Leute, ihr habt doch 'n Rad ab!

  2. dtacconi says:

    Hi NAV Anwender,

    maybe the point related to Table import has not been clear enough and I will try to reformulate.

    As long as you have a NAV Server that validate changes then you are on the safe side. Remember that every modification you made CSIDE is applied to the SQL Structure only when you prompt for synchronization and if you have to made changes on several tables (and e.g. these tables contains million of records and you have to create indexes) then it might be advisable to perform this action in chunks in order to reduce the downtime related to synchronization. And in case of tranasaction rollback you do not have to wait for a discrete amount of time.

    I deeply perceive your frustration and I am also aware that for legacy mode this decopuling in synchronization might look technically useless but this reduces complexity and caveats in having 2 different type of synchronization mechanism for single and multi tenancy.

  3. Ben says:

    We are running the original RTM build 35473 in a true multitenant production environment.  When I import table changes to production I am forced to set "Prevent data loss" to No because if I don't I get the message "There are multiple tenants mounted on the server.  Validating table layout changes to protect against data-loss is only supported with a single tenant mounted on the server."

    If we go to Build 36310 will I continue to see this message in a true multitenant environment or will I finally be able to set "Prevent Data Loss" to Yes?

  4. Ben says:

    Can I ask why it's taken almost six months for this information to come out? If the relationship between the development environment and the underlying SQL database changes as a part of 2013 R2, would it not have been useful to include that in the 'What's New: Developer and IT Pro Changes for Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013 R2' document that we rely on for information about architectural changes in the system? Did the development team not anticipate that this might cause issues? Genuinely curious.

    By the way, the current link to that document still does not mention NAV -> SQL database changes, nor contain any mention of this new synchronisation paradigm. Should probably update it to mention these issues when you get a chance.

  5. Eva [MSFT] says:

    Hello Ben,

    My apologies for not having made it clear in the "What's New" content for Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013 R2 that you might need to change the way that you think about development. As always, we appreciate your feedback and are including it in our plans for the next release. I'll see if I can squeeze this into our upcoming update tot he content in the MSDN Library as well, so thanks for pointing that out!

    I hope you will like working with NAV 2013 R2, though, because there are many good changes in the box that can make life easier for many of us in the NAV world, such as an easier upgrade path.

    Best regards,


    NAV UA team

  6. Steffen Forkmann says:

    Dear Eva,

    if a fob-import results on data loss in a customer db, then "change the way that you think about development" is not really the right wording here.

    Best regards,

    Steffen Forkmann

    Microsoft Visual F# MVP

  7. Steffen Forkmann says:

    And one small addition: Please don't call this big bug and total loss of trust a "new table synchronization paradigm".


  8. Jens Glathe says:

    Hello Eva, Hello Microsoft,

    no. Just… no. I don't enjoy working with NAV2013R2, nor do I feel well when a customer wants it. And frankly, I dont see any good changes in the box. Who cares about easier upgrade paths? That's broken since 2008, with the advent of NAV2009. An easy upgrade path would be: make a *real*, *logical* backup, import it into a new database, do a conversion run with the new application, done. That's gone for a long time now. Ditto for GUI and Reporting. Now, we're talking about *general*, *basic* fitness for the intended purpose. And it isn't, I can tell you. With this additional knowledge, I couldn't sleep as a NAV partner whith live customers on a 2013R2 product. I simply couldn't. Keeping your data turns out to be a lottery! Such a design like it's described above is simply asking for trouble. I hope you understand what's happening now. Your most loyal customers are losing their trust in the product and in your ability to SOLVE THE PROBLEM. Period.

    with best regards

    Jens Glathe

  9. Ben says:

    Hi EvaMicrosoft – Could I get an answer to my question above (looks like we have 2 different Bens posting…)?  With Build 36310 in a true multitenant environment will I always be able to leave "Prevent Data Loss" set to Yes?

  10. says:

    (Part 2 of answer)

    Therefore – and here comes the answer to your original question:

    When running with a single tenant, C/SIDE will ask the server to check the single tenant before saving the metadata.  Immediately after the metadata (table object) has been saved by C/SIDE following a successful check, the server will do the actual schema sync in SQL.

    This however is limited to the scenario of having only a single tenant, since that is the only situation where we can guarantee that we can check the database (we do not have any offline databases or 10.000 databases to check before we can say ok).

    The “Protect against data loss” switch you see in C/SIDE therefor controls if a check is required by the server before saving the metadata.  If you turn this off, the server will attempt the change asynchronously and depending on how the tenant is mounted will either fail the mount or forcefully delete a field if so chosen.

    For the reasons above, we cannot support check before save, if you are running with multiple tenants – you might dynamically add/remove tenants before/after the change and we would not be able to guarantee a successful check.  Furthermore the time between the check and mount could be hours (even days) if you did operations on 10.000 tenants.

    So the short answer to your question:

    We support checking for emptiness in a classic single tenant mode (business as usual), but as soon as you step into true multitenancy – we do not recommend doing changes to a live system and we do not support checking.  Instead we recommend a structured deploy scheme where checks can be made in upgrade code if needed.


    Thomas Hejlsberg

    CTO / Principle Architect

    Microsoft Dynamics NAV

  11. says:

    (Part 1 of answer)

    Hi Ben,

    Before NAV 2013 R2, there was only one database and C/SIDE could access the database with ease. If you tried to delete a field, C/SIDE would make a query to the SQL server verifying that the field was empty before issuing the command to actually delete the field from the table.  Finally C/SIDE would save the updated table object in the object table (2000000001).

    When we implemented multi-tenancy, we had to make a choice about the database.  Do we continue with only one database and just put both tenant and company name in front of the table name, or do we go with one database per tenant?

    The choice was an easy one.  We went with one database per tenant.  There are several reasons for this choice, but most important was the implicit separation of data (protection) that you get from separate databases, but also, clear separation of locking, ability to easily back up one of more tenants data, the possibility to scale the system by adding multiple SQL servers each serving one or more tenants etc etc.  

    We support thousands of concurrent tenants and just imagine the number of tables that would generate in a single database if we had chosen to stay with a single database – we are talking about millions of tables in a single database.

    Now, if we support multiple databases (one per tenant), what should happen if a single tenants database is “missing” when the server starts?  Should we accept the situation and support the other 999 tenants, or fail the entire server start?  Of course we need to support the situation where a tenant is missing (offline) for whatever reason – BUT this also means that we need to support a situation where a tenant database is “behind” if somebody did changes to the metadata (deleted a field) while the database was offline.  – or maybe somebody restored an old version, thereby introducing a “behind” situation.

    Both these situations lead to a problem.  Who should fix the database if the server discovers that a database is “behind”? C/SIDE might not even be available and only the NST knows about all mounted tenants…

    Keeping the sync code in C/SIDE would require C/SIDE to be able to “see” all possible tenant databases at the time one does any change leading to a fall behind situation – clearly that was not possible either.

    We solved these issues by allowing a database to be “behind” and/or offline and at the same time put all the information into the tenant database which would allow any NST to sync it up to current version when mounted.  We did introduce protective mechanisms to avoid a random database to be mounted on a “foreign” server, but even that can be overridden.

    This meant that the sync code moved from C/SIDE into the server itself – allowing the server to do any outstanding sync requests “just in time” e.g. when the tenant database was mounted.  Moving the code to the server however, “broke” the classic “delete-a-field-with-check-for-non-empty” scenario that C/SIDE used to offer.

    …continued in part 2

  12. Cristi Nicola says:

    I am dev and a long time NAV person and I have to admit I am confused after reading this.

    Can this be summarized in a simple way that idiots can understand since this has relevance to actual customer instances.

    If I run single tenant, do I need to do anything different than before? Can I just make changes in live, or import objects in live without an issue (losing data or whatever other mysterious thing) and without ever worrying about understanding what this says?

    And if I ever get to multi tenant (assuming either me as partner or my prospects don't give up on this mad and so far illogical ride that MS has taken us) does this mean that simply we should never import changes in live environment? And if not, what is the path to making updates to a multitenant deployment? Bring everyone down/disconnect everyone and then do it?

  13. Matthew says:

    Thomas thanks for your response much more readable than above.  However while I understand the logic it is not always possible to maintain identical copies of both live and test.  In the scenario below with 10000 tenants it would suggest a thorough test of preventing data loss would be mounting each tenant in turn.  I think the interpretation of all is to conduct testing and providing this is successful then in a multi-tenant you have to set Prevent Data Loss to No.  I cannot see any other way of importing any changes into a live multi tenant environment (unless the behaviour of the latest dev env build has changed).  Currently we test on our test system with all tenants (luckily not 10,000) but this is not as up to date as production.  We do this by making the change or importing the FOB then running the powershell sync and we can see this then throws the data loss error if we have an issue with one of the tenants.  

    We are going to write some code to dig into the metadata table on test and 'interprete' that to SQL and then run a check on live before it gets close.  I do understand it cant be done synchronously but I can't see why some code couldn't be written to do something similar.  Out of all the multi-tenancy changes table changes seem to be the only 'weak' area and there is no particularly best practice steps (the sentence saying you should never change the Prevent Data Loss seems ill thought out as I cannot see how to introduce any changes to live short of dismounting all then mounting each singly!).

  14. Andy says:

    Sorry I can't imagine 10000 tenants environment in 102000 NAV Customers world (source:…/how-many-companies-use-microsoft-dynamics-erp).

    Please focus on real scenarios. Synchronization must be a part of development / deployment and must not be triggered from client by any action. Please review synchronization solution in AX.

  15. Alexei Pavlov says:

    Just one stupid question – how many multi-tenant NAVs a "live" worldwide? Seriously.

    All this crap is only because of useless "multi-tenancy".

    Never had such problems before.

  16. Ben says:

    Thomas – thanks for the detailed clarification.

  17. Developer says:

    Hi at all,

    one of the biggest efforts of NAV has been the simplicity of deployment. I've some troubles about it. Why am I using a database such as Microsoft SQL-Server? To keep my data save. Reflect for your own about this.

    And you are wondered about the conservatism of your clients and end-customers?

    These days I've to decide for the destination NAV version in an upgrade project. Should I use NAV 2013 or NAV 2013 R2?

    – NAV 2013 => the save harbour, but not the latest version

    – NAV 2013 R2 => seems to get a high risk project in the near future.

    Maybe you can give me some good reasons explaining my customers why to choose NAV 2013 R2?

  18. Jens Glathe says:

    Hi Developer,

    actually we had to make the same decision, due to real-life difficulties on setting up a customer's database. We wanted to go with 2013R2, installed it, and… failed miserably on every single step to set it up with useful company data. This might be a result of lacking familiarity with NAV, and / or with the tooling available with 2013R2. But every try brought more problems:

    – Renaming a company failed with a SQL error, in RTC and in Powershell.

    – Powershell NAV-CopyCompany succeded, however the Table "Object" contained no entries for the new company (WTF?).

    – A small, RecRef-based script to wipe the standard range of table data simply failed on the machine… meaning it did something (pretty slowly, but the right SQL commands showed up on the activity monitor), but it did'nt come back even though the list of tables has been finished. Waited more than an hour, then killed the thing (several tries, different resource allowances for the machine – same end result). The same script went through (although not very fast – took a minute or so) on NAV2013 RU11.

    – Importing a company from a different database is sort of impossible.

    We decided to do the setup with 2013 and go with it until the difficulties with 2013R2 are resolved. This, at least, worked. It showed (again) how important the fbk-feature is, and how much you're disabled when you don't have it.

    with best regards


  19. Alexei Pavlov says:

    Fix FBK-backup instead of wasting *our* time on useless features such as multi-tenancy and other questionable "improvements" which look more like *** covering fixes.

  20. Ivan says:

    In my opinion multitenancy is a very good feature and I like it.

    What went wrong in NAV 2013 R2  is the implementation and architecture of the mutlitenacy.

    Firstly when you extend a product with new functionality, you never ever write a new code for existing functionality.

    In other words rather than writing the code which works for single instance and multitenancy, you only write it for multitenancy and keep the old code.

    IF Single instance THEN //old code

    ELSE //new multitenancy code

    The Synchronization is initiated when the RTC client connects. This is probably the biggest mistake in my opinion.

    The Synchronization needs a lot of resources why would someone want this process to start when RTC clients is started is a puzzle to me.

    Especially as the Synchronization drops all tables with all indexes and keys and it re-creates them.

    There is no dialogue to show the progress of the Synchronization. You have no idea when it started when it will finish.

    The Synchronization is run as one big transaction. If you have many companies, the transaction becomes massive.

    It consumes a massive amount of memory on the SQL server.

    Would not be better to have a commit after every company or table, as I do not see any advantage of having everything in one transaction ?

    Would not be better if the Synchronization is completed when objects are imported in development environment ?  

    The command Sync-NAVTenant does not report anything even if you use –verbose flag.

    “this means that any modification that are made to a table object in C/SIDE are NOT DIRECTLY applied to the SQL Server structure but there is a need of performing a secondary action to apply and made persistent these modification at SQL Server side:”

    I do not understand why the changes are not applied on the SQL Server structure immediately.

    You leave things on purpose not synchronised.  

    This is in my opinion a recipe for disaster.

    To make the long story short whoever was the technical architect of this should be ashamed of himself.

  21. says:


    We believe that MT is a strategic move for the NAV business – good for everyone associated with or invested in the product.  Whilst we don’t have 10,000 customers in such an environment now – we have contracted with new Partners who will get to 5,000 and are benchmarking with clients who want 1,000.  

    That said – we don’t want to do anything to break the existing business model – that serves the 100,000 + clients we have today.  That business model relies on single instance, single tenant deployments with customizations.  We are not abandoning the principles of Rapid Application Development, Changes to live systems, Multiple clients, Preview/Run directly from designers – it is the DNA of NAV and is supported by the single tenant deployment option we provide.  This continues to support the design experience – i.e. adding and deleting  fields – that we all love.  C/SIDE will – as it always has – give you a warning if you try to delete a non-empty field and prevent you from doing that.  

    In a multi tenant environment – the way that you develop and manage a NAV solution will be very different.  If you configure NAV for multi-tenancy or change the default settings in C/SIDE the system will behave differently, offering some new options and restricting others.

    We’re listening to the feedback here and elsewhere.  We’re fixing issues as we find them.


  22. Jens Glathe says:

    Hi Thomas,

    thank you for this statement. Just for reference:…/viewtopic.php 🙂 Interestingly, the discussion ignites on multi-tenancy. And within the thread there is this very rare posting:…/viewtopic.php

    That's 6 months ago now. We're still talking about the same issues, and it's getting worse.

    with best regards


  23. @Thomas,

    Talk about an 'optimistic' design.

    The Microsoft C/SIDE developers are going to hate this (or avoid it if they can); they seem to love removing fields.

    So as you wanted companies in distinct databases why wouldn't you duplicate EVERYTHING, the entire object table and it's "metadata" (but not users). Have an automatic sync from the primary database to the others; push the changes across but when an update fails you STOP.

    Add the column back into the master, reattempt the sync … success.


    OR … Have a script to detach the problem database from the master; connect to the problem database as if it's standalone fix the problem manually then reattach.


    All the checking is in place, no dangerous "Just delete everything" flag. Want to connect a CRONUS to add it to a vertical; no problem …

    It, JUST, WORKS.

    But doing it at client connect time seems like the worst part of the idea.

  24. Sorry,

    Forgot to ask; Does this also fix the issue where a FOB is loaded with a table change that inserts two extra rows, but, for some reason the service tier forgets to add them to the database ?

  25. Pete says:

    I need some clarification.  The hotfix in the article is Build 36310.  The build for Update Rollup 5 is 36281.  Does the hotfix build 36310 contain all hotfixes and update rollups?  Or do i need to install update rollup 5 and then this hotfix to get everything?

    The description on…/kbdisplay.aspx seems contradictory…"Platform hotfixes are cumulative, which means that the latest hotfix includes all previously released hotfixes. Therefore, you should always install the latest update rollup. "

  26. dtacconi says:

    Hi Pete,

    the second choice is the one to go. Deploy code fixes contained in UR5 and use Platform files from 36105. All Platform files are cumulative so that 36105 would contain also Platform fixes released with 36281.

  27. dtacconi says:

    @Pete Sorry, an obvious typo. Replace 36105 with 36310 in my previous statement.

  28. Pete says:

    Hi dtacconi,

    In the above article, it clearly states don't use anything below 36310, so I am confused as to what I need to apply.  Let me give an example – I have a client live on NAV 2013 R2 on Update rollup 3, with the release of this news I want to make sure they have the fix in place.  Do I only have to apply the hotfix build 36310 or do I have to apply update rollup 5 THEN the hotfix build 36310?  Is hotfix 36310 cumulative?

  29. dtacconi says:

    Hi Pete,

    table synchronization or data loss issues has no direct relation with Code hoftixes but just belongs to platform files.

    Applied to the example that you proposed, what you have to do is just to download Platform HF 36310 and deploy this in your UR3 appliction code base environment to make it more consistent from  Platform perspective.


  30. Pete says:

    hi dtaconni,

    I think we were posting at the same time and that led to a bit of confusion.  Thank you for these clarifications.  The last question I have – are Platform Hotfixes cumulative? So, does Platform HF 36310 contain all previous platform hotfixes?  Thank you for the continued help!

  31. dtacconi says:

    Yes. All Platform Hotfixes are cumulative.

  32. Rob says:

    Just curious. Why is this information buried in a blog?

  33. dtacconi says:

    Hi Rob,

    I think that Eva's first answer might be good also for your question.

    – My apologies for not having made it clear in the "What's New" content for Microsoft Dynamics NAV 2013 R2 that you might need to change the way that you think about development. As always, we appreciate your feedback and are including it in our plans for the next release. I'll see if I can squeeze this into our upcoming update tot he content in the MSDN Library as well, so thanks for pointing that out! –

  34. sergeyol says:

    Could you please describe the changes that required database conversion, in more detail?

Skip to main content