The designers of SQL for some reason did not require a keyword (like “ALL”) to protect SQL statements from accidental updates or deletes. Especially when the UPDATE or DELETE statement doesn’t contain a WHERE clause. I wonder if this was deliberate or if it was an oversight. In any case, the programmer becomes “all-powerful”. The significance of this problem will be better appreciated with an example…
I code in several different programming languages and I post content relevant to the different languages on this website. Software development tools and languages evolve very dynamically. What's hot today may be forgotten tomorrow. So, categorizing my content based on language is not very practical. Instead, I use client-server labeling to categorize my work with various programming languages. This section holds content that I consider to be back-end (or server-side) programming.
The DataGridView is the control that is mostly used for displaying the contents of lists, tables etc. However, the built-in version of this control doesn’t allow for adding row numbers/count via its properties. This feature is often required because it is difficult to keep track of the records in a table with 1000 rows if row numbers are not displayed.
By default, .NET windows forms applications generally allow multiple instances of the same application to be started on the same machine. However, if two or more threads attempt to access a shared resource such as shared memory at the same time, concurrency issues may occur. And in a production environment, this might result in data inconsistency or inaccuracy.
SQL Server 2008 allows for the creation of local backups. However, these backups must really be “local” in the sense that they can only be created on the machine where the SQL Server instance is installed. The whole idea behind database backups is about keeping a copy of data in case of Server failure or some other problem. So storing the backed up data on the same machine is definitely not a good idea.