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

Re: No Current Record

From: "Guy Steven" <guy(at)wanakalaw(dot)co(dot)nz>
To: "Greg Campbell" <greg(dot)campbell(at)us(dot)michelin(dot)com>
Cc: <pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: No Current Record
Date: 2004-01-09 00:14:59
Message-ID: KMEELBAKIIEODKIGNFILKEANDAAA.guy@wanakalaw.co.nz (view raw or flat)
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-odbc
This is really starting to confuse me.

The primary key in postgres was on a field defined as an integer.
access viewed this as a long integer. my understanding is that these both
correspond to int4, so that should be fine.
I added another column, using timestamp, to extend the primary key. This has
made no difference, although in doing so I noted that the behaviour I am
having trouble with only occurs if the new record is added using the form.
If I add a record using the datasheet view of the table, I can do what I
like with it, either in datasheet view or through a form. If however the
record is added using a form, (this is a bound form using the linked table
as its datasource), then problems arise.

Guy Steven



-----Original Message-----
From: pgsql-odbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org
[mailto:pgsql-odbc-owner(at)postgresql(dot)org]On Behalf Of Greg Campbell
Sent: Friday, 9 January 2004 3:41 a.m.
To: Guy Steven
Cc: pgsql-odbc(at)postgresql(dot)org
Subject: Re: [ODBC] No Current Record


Troubleshoot how Access sees your table.
In Access, choose to view the design of your table and ignore messages
about that you will not be able to change things on a linked table. Are
the fields what you think they should be numeric and character.

Does your table have a primary key? It should.
Is the postgres primary key float or int8 or serial8? That would be bad.
Access/ODBC behaves best when your fields are int (int4) or serial
(serial4).  There is some indication that adding a timestamp field with
a time of NOW() will allow Access to determine its (client) view of key
matches the Postgres servers view of the key and match records for
updating, etc. -- otherwise you tend to get non-updatable recordsets.

There is some indication that tables that HAVE record OIDs help maintain
the client-server key connection, avoiding the "no current record
problems".

I am a littles surprised at the ability to delete. Access tends to use a
syntax of 'DELETE * FROM table' where Postgres insist on 'DELETE FROM
table' with no *. I have to use pass-throughs to delete records.

I not sure any of this will help but I figure it is worth a shot.


Guy Steven wrote:
>
> I am experiencing a very frustrating problem with postgresql and access
> 2000.
>
> I have a postgresql 7.2.4-5.80 database and am accessing it using access
> 2000.
> Tables are linked using odbc.
>
> I can read a table. I can add records to a table. I can edit and delete
> existing records in the table, but I can not edit or delete records in the
> table that were added using the odbc connection. By this I mean that
records
> that are imported into the postgresql (from a dump from pg_dump) can be
> edited or deleted, but if I add a record from access, I can't edit or
delete
> from access.
> From within psql the records look identical.
> The error message I get is No Current Record.
>
> Guy Steven
>
> ---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
> TIP 5: Have you checked our extensive FAQ?
>
>                http://www.postgresql.org/docs/faqs/FAQ.html

---------------------------(end of broadcast)---------------------------
TIP 6: Have you searched our list archives?

               http://archives.postgresql.org



In response to

Responses

pgsql-odbc by date

Next:From: Ludek FinstrleDate: 2004-01-09 15:14:44
Subject: schema and win1250 support + misc
Previous:From: Jeff EckermannDate: 2004-01-08 15:42:02
Subject: Re: No Current Record

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