aj (ro****@mcdonalds.com) writes:
SQL Server 2005 SP2
What is the significance of the owner of a database being sa as
opposed to some administrative (or non-administrative) local login?
Should I favor one over the other?
That depends on what the server and databases are used for. If you run a
web host, you probably want to make the clients owners of their own
databases.
If you are a DBA who runs a server with a couple of applications on them,
and you are responsible for them all, sa should be just fine.
A special consideration is if you need to enable cross-database chaining.
That is, if a user calls a procedure SP1 in database A, and SP1 accesses
objects in database B, and you don't want to the user to have direct
access to those objects, you need to enable DB chainging for these
databases, and you need make sure that A and B have the same owner. If
you then have have a second pair C and D, you may want to have different
owners for C and D, so that chaining is not possible from A to C.
Can I change the owner of a database?
ALTER AUTHORIZATION ON DATABASE::db TO someuser
If I remember the syntax correct. Else check Books Online for details.
--
Erland Sommarskog, SQL Server MVP,
es****@sommarskog.se
Books Online for SQL Server 2005 at
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro...ads/books.mspx
Books Online for SQL Server 2000 at
http://www.microsoft.com/sql/prodinf...ons/books.mspx 
