| From: | Richard Broersma <richard(dot)broersma(at)gmail(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com> |
| Cc: | Willy-Bas Loos <willybas(at)gmail(dot)com>, "pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org> |
| Subject: | Re: client that supports editing views |
| Date: | 2013-12-10 18:18:54 |
| Message-ID: | CABvLTWGBcUVX9Sn0Ot7Pc1ncxkPVob2UzpKRrG20ZV6rRsuaoA@mail.gmail.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
On Mon, Dec 9, 2013 at 7:16 AM, Adrian Klaver <adrian(dot)klaver(at)gmail(dot)com>wrote:
> Is there a timestamp field in the view? This sounds like an issue Access
> has with timestamp precision, where if you supply a timestamp that is too
> precise it has problems. See here for more detail:
>
Updateable view can be a challenge due to MS-Access Optimistic Locking
checks. First, for each row updated by Access, MS-Access checks that each
field is the same returning as what it issued - Any changes with throw a
roll-back. Next if the count of record changes does not match the count
that that Access expects, it will roll-back the changes.
--
Regards,
Richard Broersma Jr.
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Kevin Grittner | 2013-12-10 18:55:23 | Re: Question about optimizing access to a table. |
| Previous Message | John R Pierce | 2013-12-10 17:01:59 | Re: postgresql.org inconsistent (Re: PG replication across DataCenters) |