Updating identity column sql server 2016 conflict theory dating
Keep in mind when a database user doesn’t have UNMASK rights they could perform an INSERT or UPDATE statement that could lose the actual clear text values of masked data.
If you are looking for ways to obscure your confidential data from some user, but not all users than consider looking at Dynamic Data Masking as a way to meet that requirement.
If I run this code I will actually lose the underlying unmask data when updating column now contains a masked value.
Why did this happen on this UPDATE example and not the prior UPDATE example?
If you look at the output from the second SELECT statement, the one after the REVERT statement, you can see the unmasked value of the updated rows in the What this example demonstrates is a user that can only see masked data can still perform UPDATE statements as if the data was not masked.
It is not true that all TSQL code will allow users that do not have UNMASK permission to perform UPDATE statements without losing the masked data they read from a source table.
The first UPDATE example consisted of just a single UPDATE statement.
It is considered a better way to delete the contents of a table than the DELETE statement, because the DELETE statement removes rows one at a time and records an entry in the transaction log for each deleted row.
The TRUNCATE statement simply deallocates the data pages and logs that event in the transaction log.
To prove that a user can see all these columns that have unmasked values let me run the following code: is masked based on the masking rule defined in the ALTER TABLE statement above.
As this section showed it is very easy to add a masking rule to a column in an existing table.