Search Results
| Search type | Search syntax |
|---|---|
| Tags | [tag] |
| Exact | "words here" |
| Author |
user:1234 user:me (yours) |
| Score |
score:3 (3+) score:0 (none) |
| Answers |
answers:3 (3+) answers:0 (none) isaccepted:yes hasaccepted:no inquestion:1234 |
| Views | views:250 |
| Code | code:"if (foo != bar)" |
| Sections |
title:apples body:"apples oranges" |
| URL | url:"*.example.com" |
| Saves | in:saves |
| Status |
closed:yes duplicate:no migrated:no wiki:no |
| Types |
is:question is:answer |
| Exclude |
-[tag] -apples |
| For more details on advanced search visit our help page | |
Results tagged with update
Search options not deleted
user 163249
UPDATE changes the values of the specified columns in all rows that satisfy the condition. Only the columns to be modified need be mentioned in the SET clause; columns not explicitly modified retain their previous values.
1
vote
1
answer
523
views
Should SQL Server 2000 throw an error if update statement fails within a SP?
I'm troubleshooting an issue on SQL Server 2000 where it appears that a update statement in a stored procedure failed, and the check for @@ERROR <> 0 didn't catch it, so the transaction was committed. … If the update statement didn't complete sucessfully, should it have been caught by my @@ERROR check? …
