| From: | Ron Snyder <snyder(at)roguewave(dot)com> |
|---|---|
| To: | 'Hiroshi Inoue' <Inoue(at)tpf(dot)co(dot)jp> |
| Cc: | pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org, Tom Lane <tgl(at)sss(dot)pgh(dot)pa(dot)us> |
| Subject: | Re: Using views and MS access via odbc |
| Date: | 2002-05-07 16:21:49 |
| Message-ID: | F888C30C3021D411B9DA00B0D0209BE803BB9956@cvo-exchange.cvo.roguewave.com |
| Views: | Raw Message | Whole Thread | Download mbox | Resend email |
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-general |
> > Although I can't tell for sure, I really don't think it's the
> > output of the UPDATE 0 that is causing the problem.
>
> You may have other problems.
> However you can't get expected results anyway
> as long as you are using ordinary updatable views
> in 7.2.
You're right. When I finally got through _my_ problem (I wasn't paying
attention to the MS access dialog box-- it was asking me to identify the
unique ID, and I was thinking it was asking me to select the columns I
wanted to see from the linked table), I hit the problems that I think you
are referring to (and the ms access timestamp(3) limitation).
-ron
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Neil Conway | 2002-05-07 17:29:46 | Re: Index usage vs large repetitions of key |
| Previous Message | Bruno Wolff III | 2002-05-07 15:43:24 | Re: Allow user to create tables |