What databases could run the following SQL? - mysql

Question

I have constructed a query and I'm wondering if it would work on any database besides MySQL. I have never actually used another database so I'm not great with the differences.
UPDATE `locks` AS `l1`
CROSS JOIN (SELECT SUM(`value`) AS `sum` FROM `locks`
WHERE `key` IN ("key3","key2")) AS `l2`
SET `l1`.`value` = `l1`.`value` + 1
WHERE `l1`.`key` = "key1" AND (`l2`.`sum` < 1);
Here are the specific features I'm relying on (as I can think of them):
Update queries.
Joins in update queries.
Aggregate functions in non-explicitly-grouped queries.
WHERE...IN condition.
I'm sure people will be curious exactly what this does, and this may also include database features that might not be ubiquitous. This is an implementation of mutual exclusion using a database, intended for a web application. In my case I needed it because certain user actions cause tables to be dropped and recreated with different columns, and I want to avoid errors if other parts of the application try to insert data. The implementation, therefore, is specialized to solve the readers-writers problem.
This query assumes there exists a table locks with two fields: key (varchar) and value (int). It further assumes that the table contains a row such that key="key1". Then it tries to increment the value for "key1". It only does so if for every key in the list ("key2","key3"), the associated value is 0 (the WHERE condition for l2 is an approximation that assumes value is never negative). Therefore this query only "obtains a lock" if certain conditions are met, presumably in an atomic fashion. Then, the application checks if it received a lock by the return value of the query which presumably states how many rows were affected. If and only if no rows were affected, the application did not receive a lock.
So, here are the additional conditions not discernable from the query itself:
Assumes that in a multi-threaded environment, a copy of this query will never be interleaved with another copy.
Processing the query must return whether any values were affected.
As a secondary request, I would appreciate any resources on "standard SQL." I've heard about it but never been able to find any kind of definition, and I feel like I'm missing a lot of things when the MySQL documentation says "this feature is an extension of standard SQL."
Based on the responses, this query should work better across all systems:
UPDATE locks AS l1
CROSS JOIN (SELECT SUM(val) AS others FROM locks
WHERE keyname IN ('key3','key2')) AS l2
SET l1.val = l1.val + 1
WHERE l1.keyname = 'key1' AND (l2.others < 1);
Upvotes for everyone because of the good answers. The marked answer seeks to directly answer my question, even if just for one other DBMS, and even though there may be better solutions to my particular problem (or even the problem of cross-platform SQL in general).

Answer 1

This exact syntax would only work in MySQL.
It's an ugly workaround for this construct:
UPDATE locks
SET value = 1
WHERE key = 'key1'
AND NOT EXISTS
(
SELECT NULL
FROM locks li
WHERE li.key IN ('key2', 'key3')
AND li.value > 0
)
which works in all systems except MySQL, because the latter does not allow subqueries on the target table in UPDATE or DELETE statements.

Answer 2

For PostgreSQL
1) Update queries.
Can't imagine a RDBMS that has no UPDATE. (?)
2) Joins in update queries.
In PostgreSQL you would include additional tables with FROM from_list.
3) Aggregate functions in non-grouped queries.
Not possible in PostgreSQL. Use subqueries, CTE or Window functions for that.
But your query is grouped. The GROUP BY clause is just not spelled out. That works in PostgreSQL, too.
The presence of HAVING turns a query into a grouped query even if
there is no GROUP BY clause. This is the same as what happens when the
query contains aggregate functions but no GROUP BY clause.
(Quote from the manual).
4) WHERE...IN condition
Works in any RDBMS I know of.
"Additional conditions": Assumes that in a multi-threaded environment, a copy of this query will never be interleaved with another copy.
PostgreSQL's multiversion model MVCC (Multiversion Concurrency Control) is superior to MySQL for handling concurrency. Then again, most RDBMS are superior to MySQL in this respect.
Processing the query must return whether any values were affected.
Postgres does that, most every RDBMS does.
Furthermore, this query wouldn't run in PostgreSQL because:
no identifiers with backticks (that's MySQL slang).
values need to be single-quoted, not double-quoted.
See the list of reserved words in Postgres and SQL standards.
A combined list for various RDBMS.

Answer 3

This will only work in mysql, just because you use "`" delimiter, which is mysql-specific only.
What if you replace delimiter with more "standard" one: then probably it will work in all modern DBMS (postgres, sql server, oracle), but I would never write a general query for all - I'd better written a specific query for each used (or potentially used) DBMS to use its specific language dialects to get the best performance and query readability.
What about "As a secondary request, I would appreciate any resources on "standard SQL."" --- get a look at http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~shadow/sql/sql1992.txt