Post reply

SYSLanguages on SQL 2012

  • May 12, 2012 at 4:08 pm

    #392249

    Comments posted to this topic are about the item SYSLanguages on SQL 2012

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This thing is addressing problems that dont exist. Its solution-ism at its worst. We are dumbing down machines that are inherently superior. - Gilfoyle

  • May 12, 2012 at 4:09 pm

    #1486802

    Nice way to start the week.

    If everything seems to be going well, you have obviously overlooked something.

    Ron

    Please help us, help you -before posting a question please read[/url]
    Before posting a performance problem please read[/url]

  • May 14, 2012 at 12:12 am

    #1486937

    +1. Thanks for the easy question.

  • May 14, 2012 at 1:39 am

    #1486971

    Thank-you, for the nice & easy question. For me, the week generally goes good if the start is good 🙂

    I have strongly believed that if users are not supposed to use something, they should not be able to access it.

    The "allow updates" option has been marked as deprecated. Setting it to 1 results in a few other issues also (http://beyondrelational.com/modules/2/blogs/77/posts/11282/ad-hoc-update-to-system-catalogs-is-not-supported-when-using-reconfigure.aspx)

    While the deprecation of "allow updates" from the options list may take a couple of releases, I had raised a Connect item to at least move this into the "advanced options" list (https://connect.microsoft.com/SQLServer/feedback/details/662305/sp-configure-allow-updates-should-be-an-advanced-option#details). However the item was marked as "Won't Fix".

    Thanks & Regards,
    Nakul Vachhrajani.
    http://nakulvachhrajani.com

    Follow me on
    Twitter: @sqltwins

  • May 14, 2012 at 1:51 am

    This was removed by the editor as SPAM

  • May 14, 2012 at 3:33 am

    #1486989

    Good question to start the week, thanks.

    Spent time researching thinking there must be a trick in there somewhere, but in the end went with what I knew and phew! got it right... 😀

    _____________________________________________________________________
    [font="Comic Sans MS"]"The difficult tasks we do immediately, the impossible takes a little longer"[/font]

  • May 14, 2012 at 4:13 am

    #1487000

    Good question.

    It's a pity the script used in the explanation didn't include "RECONFIGURE WITH OVERRIDE

    GO" like the script in the question. The absence of the reconfigure statement after the sp_configure call has generated a message saying that reconfigure has to be used to give effect to the sp_configure arguments might suggest to some readers that this is the reason for the update statement failing, which it clearly isn't. In fact Bol suggests that the (first) RECONFIGURE command would fail anyway, and it would have been nice if the script in teh explanation had shown this failure.

    Tom

  • May 14, 2012 at 5:51 am

    #1487043

    nice question!!!

    thanks!

    [font="Times New Roman"]rfr.ferrari[/font]
    DBA - SQL Server 2008
    MCITP | MCTS

    remember is live or suffer twice!
    the period you fastest growing is the most difficult period of your life!

  • May 14, 2012 at 8:17 am

    #1487140

    Thanks for the question.

  • May 14, 2012 at 9:15 am

    #1487179

    An easy one to start the week - thanks!

  • May 14, 2012 at 9:18 am

    #1487183

    Thanks for the question. I'd like to see more questions on sys tables/views. Please.

    [font="Verdana"]Please don't go. The drones need you. They look up to you.[/font]
    Connect to me on LinkedIn

  • May 14, 2012 at 10:01 am

    #1487224

    nice one to start the week - cheers

  • May 14, 2012 at 11:09 am

    #1487267

    I'd have thought more people would have gotten this one right. Only 60% at this time, sorry but that's low for this question imho.

  • May 14, 2012 at 11:15 am

    #1487271

    Lynn Pettis (5/14/2012)

    I'd have thought more people would have gotten this one right. Only 60% at this time, sorry but that's low for this question imho.

    I agree. It seems unlikely that 40% of people are unaware that this has changed since SQL Server 2000, and there's no other sensible reason for anyone to get it wrong.

    Tom

  • May 14, 2012 at 10:55 pm

    #1487527

    Lynn Pettis (5/14/2012)

    I'd have thought more people would have gotten this one right. Only 60% at this time, sorry but that's low for this question imho.

    Quite surprised myself....well hopefully someone learned something from this easy yet (looks like?) challenging question.

    -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    This thing is addressing problems that dont exist. Its solution-ism at its worst. We are dumbing down machines that are inherently superior. - Gilfoyle

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 23 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic. Login to reply