@EvanCarroll "That's absolutely unacceptable"? Well, I'm sorry you feel that way but I'm pretty trigger-happy when it comes to deleting comments, and I plan to stay that way. Meta is the place to express your indignation if you honesty feel this is an example of messed-up moderation.
@MaxVernon I can, but when I click on Renewal information button: Information about renewing a product purchased through a partner or Sales Associate
For purchases made through a partner: To renew your Red Hat subscription(s), you can directly contact the Red Hat reseller from whom you originally purchased your subscription. Find a partner near you
@AndriyM Long comment chains, where I have to add useful stuff to the question/answers (and/or a CW answer of my own) can take up to an hour, I'd guess.
@PaulWhite Actually, I need 2 more upvotes on my question to keep the ratio at the solid 1:2 between my question and your answer that we've observed all along!
Consider this answer on SO that reassures the asker about the <> operator that:
<> is ... the same as !=.
But then a commenter pipes up and says:
It's true that they are, functionally, the same. However, how the SQL optimizer uses them is very different. =/!= are simply evaluated as tru...
The first time I heard of sp_getapplock: http://dba.stackexchange.com/questions/36603/handling-concurrent-access-to-a-key-table-without-deadlocks-in-sql-server#comment65313_36807
I wrote some C# code that wraps sp_getapplock so that app code can get blocking (and I supposed deadlocking) features through a shared database. Would anyone be interested in such code and how should I share it?
@book{ANSI:SQL1986, AUTHOR = "American National Standards Institute", TITLE = "{D}atabase {L}anguage {SQL}", NOTE = "Document ANSI X3.135-1986. Also available as International Standards Organization Document ISO/TC97/SC21/WG3 N117." }
@MaxVernon Meaning, if multiple servers running the same app need to connect to the database. In our environment, a web server can perform certain actions, but so can a Windows service (could be installed on the same server or a different one).
Instead of trying to solve the problem of ensuring both don't perform the same action through network or Windows or other outside-the-database technology, given that the action is ultimately recorded to the database, then serialize it through the database which is shared.
@MaxVernon Do you think this question and self-answer would have value here? Are people here interested in C# code to do databasey things?
That's one whitepaper with 30 references making a mistake on how to cite one of the references. But we would have to ask ISO for an authoritative source
@McNets I would remove the part about SQL-89 on your answer, or move it to the bottom. That spec is a lot easier to find (and it doesn't have anything to do with SQL-86). I would want the original research and the proof that it's in a government library at the top of that answer.
that's better the pdf, everyone uses that it just has no relevance to the question. SQL-92 is massively different than 86/89. I don't exactly know how or why. But, I know it to be.
Consider this answer on SO that reassures the asker about the <> operator that:
<> is ... the same as !=.
But then a commenter pipes up and says:
It's true that they are, functionally, the same. However, how the SQL optimizer uses them is very different. =/!= are simply evaluated as tru...
