Azure-docs: Incorrect database identification in step 5 of the first strategy

[agentHoover]

In the first strategy, if I understand correctly, the text describing the 5th step incorrectly indicates that the PRIMARY database should be put in RW mode and upgraded. Should this not be the SECONDARY database? In any case it doesn't match the diagram.
"3. Turn the primary database to read-write mode and run the upgrade script in the stage slot (5)."

---

Document Details

⚠ Do not edit this section. It is required for docs.microsoft.com ➟ GitHub issue linking.

• ID: baa6b22d-e969-1a7b-5598-a34e0f6314a6
• Version Independent ID: 2d741fa1-3fea-7f78-5074-0627b1bfa129
• Content: Rolling application upgrades - Azure SQL Database
• Content Source: articles/sql-database/sql-database-manage-application-rolling-upgrade.md
• Service: sql-database
• GitHub Login: @anosov1960
• Microsoft Alias: sashan

[Mike-Ubezzi-MSFT]

@agentHoover Thank you for the detailed feedback. The information can be understood at a high level but if you were to try and follow these steps specifically, there would be a period of time where end-users will experience an interruption of the service. Between this step:

Create a failover profile in ATM with contoso-1.azurewebsites.net as online endpoint and contoso-2.azurewebsites.net as offline.

and the next step:

Set the primary database in the production slot to read-only mode (3). This will guarantee that the production instance of the application (V1) will remain read-only during the upgrade thus preventing the data divergence between the V1 and V2 database instances.

At this point in time, per the graph, the secondary is not receiving traffic and the primary is in a read-only mode. That is unless the primary URL contoso.azurewebsites.net is still receiving traffic and the application is connected to a database instance that is in read-write mode, which the graph does not convey effectively.

So, I agree that there is some work to be done with this documentation. An ops resource could walk through this process and detail the specific steps. I am going to bring this to the attention of the content owners (@anosov1960 @CarlRabeler) to provide feedback on this.

[CarlRabeler]

Adding @MashaMSFT to coordinate answer in conjunction with @anosov1960

[Mike-Ubezzi-MSFT]

@agentHoover I am assigning this to the content owner to evaluate and update as appropriate.

[CarlRabeler]

@MashaMSFT please coordinate with @anosov1960 on this doc bug

[MashaMSFT]

Hi @agentHoover , thanks for bringing this to our attention! I'm looking into this. Thanks!

[CarlRabeler]

@MashaMSFT please provide an update on progress on this issue

[MashaMSFT]

Hi @CarlRabeler , we're still working on this :) Thanks!

[MashaMSFT]

Hi @agentHoover , thanks again for your feedback! The steps identified in the article have been corrected. Can you please verify your issue has been addressed? Thanks!

[agentHoover]

Looks good. Thanks.