Paul White NZ (4/18/2010)
Tom.Thomson (4/17/2010)
Someone may already have said this, but in case they haven't:Actually, pretty much every other post so far has covered it :w00t: and Rune responded:
"Yep, I was wrong about that. And I even ran a test to verify my thought before I posted, but I managed to read the results of that test wrong. My bad. I suppose that was because I expected it to work that way simply based on the fact that SET doesn't yield a 1 row(s) affected." Ah, well. Learn something new everyday.
Yes, if I had read all the posts before firing up the editor I wouldn't have bothered.
Tom