Skip site navigation (1) Skip section navigation (2)

Re: UPDATE statement value mutation

From: Richard Broersma <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com>
To: pgsql-odbc <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: UPDATE statement value mutation
Date: 2010-07-06 18:24:55
Message-ID: AANLkTilG7bdKKMnRX_uEqUHEP0OTwmepD2mF2l_aZXWm@mail.gmail.com (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-odbc
I stripped the .bmp attachment since it seems emails with attachments
aren't distributed.

On Mon, Jul 5, 2010 at 3:24 PM, Richard Broersma
<richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com> wrote:
> Notice the attached bitmap image.  I'm trying to change a value from
> my MS-Access front-end from 0 to 99 using an update-able query.
> However, when the actual update statement reaches PostgreSQL the value
> of 99 is some how changed to 11.  Is this a bug in Access or the ODBC
> driver?
>
>
>
> Postgresql Version:
>                           version
> -------------------------------------------------------------
>  PostgreSQL 8.4.4, compiled by Visual C++ build 1400, 32-bit
>
>
> ODBC driver version:
> ------------------------------
> [0.002]Driver Version='08.04.0200,200912260001' linking 1500 static
> Multithread library
> [0.003]Global Options: fetch=100, socket=4096, unknown_sizes=0,
> max_varchar_size=255, max_longvarchar_size=8190
> [0.003]                disable_optimizer=0, ksqo=1, unique_index=1,
> use_declarefetch=0
> [0.004]                text_as_longvarchar=1,
> unknowns_as_longvarchar=0, bools_as_char=1 NAMEDATALEN=64
> [0.005]                extra_systable_prefixes='dd_', conn_settings=''
> conn_encoding=''
> [0.087]    [ PostgreSQL version string = '8.4.4' ]
> [0.087]    [ PostgreSQL version number = '8.4' ]
> [0.090]conn=088A4008, query='select oid, typbasetype from pg_type
> where typname = 'lo''
> [0.099]    [ fetched 0 rows ]
> [0.101]    [ Large Object oid = -999 ]
> [0.102]    [ Client encoding = 'UTF8' (code = 6) ]
>
>
> MS-Access 2002 (10.6771.6858) SP3
>
>
> Here is the statement that reaches Postgresql.
>
> 2010-07-05 15:21:26 PDTLOG:  statement: BEGIN;UPDATE
> "public"."drawings" SET "drawing_type"=11  WHERE "drawingnbr" =
> E'E-4400-60429D-S1' AND "xmin" = 23018
> 2010-07-05 15:21:26 PDTERROR:  insert or update on table "drawings"
> violates foreign key constraint "drawings_drawing_type_fkey"
> 2010-07-05 15:21:26 PDTDETAIL:  Key (drawing_type)=(11) is not present
> in table "drawing_types".
> 2010-07-05 15:21:26 PDTSTATEMENT:  BEGIN;UPDATE "public"."drawings"
> SET "drawing_type"=11  WHERE "drawingnbr" = E'E-4400-60429D-S1' AND
> "xmin" = 23018
> 2010-07-05 15:21:26 PDTLOG:  statement: ROLLBACK
>
> --
> Regards,
> Richard Broersma Jr.
>
> Visit the Los Angeles PostgreSQL Users Group (LAPUG)
> http://pugs.postgresql.org/lapug

Responses

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Arnaud LesauvageDate: 2010-07-07 06:47:52
Subject: Re: 'default nextval()' loses schema-qualification in dump ?
Previous:From: Tom LaneDate: 2010-07-06 15:17:38
Subject: Re: 'default nextval()' loses schema-qualification in dump ?

Privacy Policy | About PostgreSQL
Copyright © 1996-2014 The PostgreSQL Global Development Group