| From: | "Henshall, Stuart - WCP" <SHenshall(at)westcountrypublications(dot)co(dot)uk> | 
|---|---|
| To: | "'Markus Wagner'" <wagner(at)imsd(dot)uni-mainz(dot)de>, pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org | 
| Subject: | Re: serious trouble with bool and Access | 
| Date: | 2002-02-19 14:13:28 | 
| Message-ID: | E2870D8CE1CCD311BAF50008C71EDE8E01F747ED@MAIL_EXCHANGE | 
| Views: | Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email | 
| Thread: | |
| Lists: | pgsql-interfaces | 
Hi,
	Bools are 16 bit integers in MS Access. To get around this
problem I just defined int2 in the fields where I wanted bools and 
this seems to be working fine. I always check field<>false as, in MS 
Access, false=0 and true=-1, but of course int2s can have other 
values. To help MS Access with its versioning try turning row 
versioning on.
Hope this helps,
- Stuart
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Markus Wagner [mailto:wagner(at)imsd(dot)uni-mainz(dot)de]
> Sent: 15 February 2002 07:36
> To: pgsql-interfaces(at)postgresql(dot)org
> Subject: serious trouble with bool and Access
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> we're in serious trouble with an application using BOOLs. We 
> have boolean 
> attributes in a pg table, being represented as checkboxes in 
> Access. Changing 
> these controls results in an error message "another user has 
> changed the 
> data", or something like that.
> 
> We tried nearly everything. The mailing list archives gave 
> hints to the pg 
> ODBC driver, the "bools as char" flag and so on. We tried 
> with and without 
> this flag. Then, without it, the problem seemed to be solved. 
> But we found 
> that now the data must have been changed several times in 
> different records, 
> before the problem reappears.
> 
> Our current settings are "bools as char" off, "text as 
> longvarchar" off. The 
> bools are normal BOOL attributes of size 1, as reported by 
> pgaccess. We also 
> tried to change the table properties for the fields in 
> Access, "display as 
> checkbox" and so on. We drag the fields from the field list 
> into the form. 
> But also changing the ODBC-connected tables directly results 
> in the same 
> error.
> 
> Isn't there a unique solution to that? Why are bools that critical?
> 
> Thank you very much,
> 
> Markus
> 
| From | Date | Subject | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Next Message | Tom Lane | 2002-02-19 15:01:57 | Re: odbc on unix | 
| Previous Message | Michael Meskes | 2002-02-19 12:22:42 | Re: odbc on unix |