Comments on: Thank you, MySQL http://7fff.com/2008/01/07/thank-you-mysql/ Fri, 07 May 2010 17:51:59 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8 hourly 1 By: Max http://7fff.com/2008/01/07/thank-you-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-96 Max Tue, 08 Jan 2008 17:35:58 +0000 http://7fff.com/2008/01/07/thank-you-mysql/#comment-96 Right. Which pretty much any vendor's RDBMS would happily execute. It turned out not to be a big deal and I was able to figure out the correct values to run the re-update on, but it clearly could easily have been worse. Right. Which pretty much any vendor’s RDBMS would happily execute.

It turned out not to be a big deal and I was able to figure out the correct values to run the re-update on, but it clearly could easily have been worse.

]]> By: john http://7fff.com/2008/01/07/thank-you-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-95 john Tue, 08 Jan 2008 14:44:24 +0000 http://7fff.com/2008/01/07/thank-you-mysql/#comment-95 Doubtless the other vendors allow != but it's one of those convenience things that MySQL is good about. Meanwhile: Sorry about your update! At least it wasn't delete from user; Doubtless the other vendors allow != but it’s one of those convenience things that MySQL is good about.

Meanwhile: Sorry about your update! At least it wasn’t delete from user;

]]> By: Max http://7fff.com/2008/01/07/thank-you-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-94 Max Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:43:38 +0000 http://7fff.com/2008/01/07/thank-you-mysql/#comment-94 whoops, ^.^<>.^ whoops, ^.^<>.^

]]> By: Max http://7fff.com/2008/01/07/thank-you-mysql/comment-page-1/#comment-93 Max Tue, 08 Jan 2008 13:42:24 +0000 http://7fff.com/2008/01/07/thank-you-mysql/#comment-93 Thank you substantially less, MySQL for mindlessly executing the following statement: update user remotecheck set Process_priv='Y'; As you can guess, it set every user in the mysql database's Process_priv column to 'Y'. Why did it even parse? Did it regard "remotecheck" (which should have been in a "where user='remotecheck' clause) as a table alias for user? I do, however, strongly prefer using != to . Don't most major vendors support that syntax, non-standard as it may be? I seem to remember using it in Oracle and SQL Server as well. Thank you substantially less, MySQL

for mindlessly executing the following statement:

update user remotecheck set Process_priv=’Y';

As you can guess, it set every user in the mysql database’s Process_priv column to ‘Y’. Why did it even parse? Did it regard “remotecheck” (which should have been in a “where user=’remotecheck’ clause) as a table alias for user?

I do, however, strongly prefer using != to . Don’t most major vendors support that syntax, non-standard as it may be? I seem to remember using it in Oracle and SQL Server as well.

]]>