Re: Odd SQL UPDATE statement
Re: Odd SQL UPDATE statement
- Subject: Re: Odd SQL UPDATE statement
- From: Sam Barnum <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 19:06:59 -0700
you've got multiple fields checked to use for locking purposes.
Checking a field for locking means that if some other process changes
a value that EOF has in memory, the update will fail, and you'll get
an exception.
On Oct 10, 2007, at 6:48 PM, Klaus Berkling wrote:
Why does WO create such an odd SQL statement:
UPDATE QA SET question = NULL, answer1 = NULL, id_users = ?,
problem = NULL, date_modified = ? WHERE (id = ? AND answer1 = ? AND
answer2 is NULL AND date_created = ? AND date_modified = ? AND
figure1url is NULL AND figure2url is NULL AND figure3url is NULL
AND id_language = ? AND id_qaDetails = ? AND id_users = ? AND
keywords is NULL AND problem = ? AND question = ?)
'id' is the primary key. Why does WO not just use the primary key
only?
I know I have seen this discussed before but I can't find the
thread anywhere. Does know the thread where this was discussed?
(This update fails, I presume because there are characters in the
'answer1' column that don't make the round trip so it can't find
the row to update.)
Thanks in advanced.
kib
"Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to
continue that counts.”
- Winston Churchill
--
Klaus Berkling
Systems Administrator
DynEd International, Inc.
www.dyned.com | web.mac.com/kib
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
40360works.com
This email sent to email@hidden
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Webobjects-dev mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden