"UPDATE table_name SET w = $1, x = $2, z = $4 WHERE y = $3 RETURNING *",

does not do the same as

"UPDATE table_name SET w = $1, x = $2, y = $3, z = $4 RETURNING *",

It’s 2 am and my mind blanked out the WHERE, and just wanted the numbers neatly in order of 1234.

idiot.

FML.

  • AlphaOmega
    link
    fedilink
    107
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This is a hard lesson to learn. From now on, my guess is you will have dozens of backups.

    • @marcos@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      631 year ago

      And a development environment. And not touch production without running the exact code at least once and being well slept.

          • @snail_hatan@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            Totally right! You must set yourself up so a fool can run in prod and produce the expected result. Which is the purpose of a test env.

        • @snail_hatan@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          0
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Replied hastily, but the way to run db statements in prod while dealing with sleep deprivation and drinking too much is to run it a bunch in several test env scenarios so you’re just copy pasting to prod and it CAN confidently be done. Also enable transactions and determine several, valid smoke tests.

          Edit: a -> several

      • @sim642@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        111 year ago

        Transactions aren’t backups. You can just as easily commit before fully realizing it. Backups, backups, backups.

        • @elvith@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          201 year ago

          Yes, but

          1. Begin transaction
          2. Update table set x=‘oopsie’
          3. Sees 42096 rows affected
          4. Rollback

          Can prevent a restore, whereas doing the update with auto commit guarantees a restore on (mostly) every error you make

          • Can prevent a restore, whereas doing the update with auto commit guarantees a restore on (mostly) every error you make

            Exactly. Restores often result in system downtime and may take hours and involve lots of people. The backup might not have the latest data either, and restoring to a single table you screwed up may not be feasible or come with risk of inconsistent data being loaded. Even if you just created the backup before your statement, what about the transaction coming in while you’re working and after you realize your error? Can you restore without impacting those?

            You want to avoid all of that if possible. If you’re mucking with data that you’ll have to restore if you mess up, production or not, you should be working with an open transaction. As you said… if you see an unexpected number of rows updated, easy to rollback. And you can run queries after you’ve modified the data to confirm your table contains data as you expect now. Something surprising… rollback and re-think what you’re doing. Better to never touch a backup and not shoot yourself in the foot and your data in the face all due to a stupid, easily preventable mistake.

    • @kucing@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      141 year ago

      I’ve read something like “there are two kinds of people: those who backup and those who are about to”

  • @originalfrozenbanana@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    841 year ago

    This doesn’t help you but may help others. I always run my updates and deletes as selects first, validate the results are what I want including their number and then change the select to delete, update, whatever

    • @NOPper@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      231 year ago

      I learned this one very early on in my career as a physical security engineer working with access control databases. You only do it to one customer ever. 🤷‍♂️

  • agilob
    link
    fedilink
    English
    43
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    All (doesn’t seem like MsSQL supports it, I thought that’s a pretty basic feature) databases have special configuration that warn or throw error when you try to UPDATE or DELETE without WHERE. Use it.

  • @Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    411 year ago

    You’re not the first. You won’t be the last. I’m just glad my DB of choice uses transactions by default, so I can see “rows updated: 3,258,123” and back the fuck out of it.

    I genuinely believe that UPDATE and DELETE without a WHERE clause should be considered a syntax error. If you want to do all rows for some reason, it should have been something like UPDATE table SET field=value ALL.

    • @drekly@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      11 year ago

      Because I’m relatively new at this type of thing, how does that appear on the front end? I’m using a js/html front end and a jsnode backend. Would I just see a popup before I make any changes?

      • @Blackmist@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        21 year ago

        No idea. My tools connect directly to the DB server, rather than going though any web server shenanigans.

      • If you’re asking about the information about the number of rows, oracle db clients do that. For nodejs, oracle’s library will provide this number in the response to a dml statement execution. So you can retrieve it in your backend code. You have to write additional code to bring this message to the front-end.

        https://oracle.github.io/node-oracledb/

        • @drekly@lemmy.worldOP
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Awesome, thanks for the info. Definitely super useful for debug mode whilst I’m fixing and tampering!

    • @groucho@lemmy.sdf.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      21 year ago

      Yep. If you’re in a situation where you have to write SQL on the fly in prod, you have already failed.

      • @XTornado@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        4
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Me doing it for multiple years in a Bank…Uhm…

        (let’s just say I am not outting my money near them… and not just because of that but other things…)

        • @groucho@lemmy.sdf.org
          link
          fedilink
          English
          11 year ago

          Yeah, I swear it’s part of the culture at some places. At my first full-time job, my boss dropped the production database the week before I started. They lost at least a day of records because of it and he spent most of the first day telling me why writing sql in prod was bad.

    • @XTornado@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      But the adrenaline man… some of us are jonkies of adrenaline but we are too afraid of anything more of physically dangerous…

    • Caveman
      link
      fedilink
      11 year ago

      Raw dog is the fastest way to finish a task.

      • productivity
      • risk

      It’s a trade-off

        • Caveman
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          No, but people are sometimes forced to do these things because of pressure from management and/or lack of infrastructure to do it in any other way.

          Definitely don’t endorse it but I have done it. Think of a “Everything is down” situation that can be fixed in 1 minute with SQL.

    • Dark Arc
      link
      fedilink
      English
      12
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Better yet… Always use a transaction when trying new SQL/doing manual steps and have backups.

      • Nailbar
        link
        fedilink
        151 year ago

        By running a select query first, you get a nice list of the rows you are going to change. If the list is the entire set, you’ll likely notice.

        If it looks good, you run the update query using the same where clause.

        But that’s for manual changes. OP’s update statement looks like it might be generated from code, in which case this wouldn’t have helped.

    • @drekly@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      31 year ago

      I did when I made the query a year ago. Dumdum sleep deprived brain thought it would look more organised this way

  • @TeenieBopper@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    291 year ago

    I once dropped a table in a production database.

    I never should have had write permissions on that database. You can bet they changed that when clinicians had to redo four days of work because the hosting company or whatever only had weekly backups, not daily.

    So, I feel your pain.

  • SuperFola
    link
    fedilink
    English
    261 year ago

    There is still the journal you could use to recover the old state of your database. I assume you commited after your update query, thus you would need to copy first the journal, remove the updates from it, and reconstruct the db from the altered journal.

    This might be harder than what I’m saying and heavily depends on which db you used, but if it was a transactional one it has to have a journal (not sure about nosql ones).

    • @drekly@lemmy.worldOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      41 year ago

      It is after the event that I find that postgres’ WAL journalling is off by default 🙃

    • @Aganim@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      321 year ago

      Periodic, versioned and tested backups.

      It absolutely, totally, never ever happened to me that I had a bunch of backups available that turned out to be effectively unrestorable the moment I needed them. 😭

  • Bappity
    link
    fedilink
    English
    16
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    who thought it was a good idea to make the where condition in SQL syntax only correct after the set?? disaster waiting to happen

    • xigoi
      link
      fedilink
      61 year ago

      The people designing SQL, not having learned from the mistakes of COBOL, thought that having the syntax as close to English as possible will make it more readable.