Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Using views and MS access via odbc

2002-05-06 Thread Ron Snyder
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. I configured the server to log all queries last night, and it looks to me like it (MS Access) is doing stupid stuff. (Like issuing a select on all fields (but not *), and then issuing

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Using views and MS access via odbc

2002-05-05 Thread Hiroshi Inoue
> -Original Message- > From: Ron Snyder [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > 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

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Using views and MS access via odbc

2002-05-04 Thread Hiroshi Inoue
> -Original Message- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If you'd not like to change the behavior, I would change it, OK ? > >> > >> To what? I don't want to simply undo the 7.2 change. > > > What I'm thinking is the following

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Using views and MS access via odbc

2002-05-04 Thread Tom Lane
"Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you'd not like to change the behavior, I would change it, OK ? >> >> To what? I don't want to simply undo the 7.2 change. > What I'm thinking is the following makeshift fix. > I expect it solves Ron's case though I'm not sure. > Returning UPDATE

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Using views and MS access via odbc

2002-05-04 Thread Hiroshi Inoue
> -Original Message- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > "Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > If you'd not like to change the behavior, I would change it, OK ? > > To what? I don't want to simply undo the 7.2 change. What I'm thinking is the following makeshift f

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Using views and MS access via odbc

2002-05-03 Thread Tom Lane
"Hiroshi Inoue" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > If you'd not like to change the behavior, I would change it, OK ? To what? I don't want to simply undo the 7.2 change. regards, tom lane ---(end of broadcast)--- TIP 4: Don't

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Using views and MS access via odbc

2002-05-03 Thread Hiroshi Inoue
> -Original Message- > From: Tom Lane > > Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Your settings probably worked well under 7.1 but > > doesn't in 7.2 due to the following change in > > tcop/postgres.c. > > AFAIR, there is only a visible change of behavior for > INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Using views and MS access via odbc

2002-05-02 Thread Hiroshi Inoue
> -Original Message- > From: Tom Lane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Your settings probably worked well under 7.1 but > > doesn't in 7.2 due to the following change in > > tcop/postgres.c. > > AFAIR, there is only a visible change of behavior

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Using views and MS access via odbc

2002-05-02 Thread Tom Lane
Hiroshi Inoue <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Your settings probably worked well under 7.1 but > doesn't in 7.2 due to the following change in > tcop/postgres.c. AFAIR, there is only a visible change of behavior for INSERT/UPDATE/DELETE queries, not for SELECTs. So I don't think this change explai

Re: [HACKERS] [GENERAL] Using views and MS access via odbc

2002-05-01 Thread Hiroshi Inoue
Ron Snyder wrote: > > I've got a table, view, and rules as below. The permissions are set up in > such a way that I can use it just fine as myself via psql. When I try to > access the data using an ms access interface via odbc, I get the first > record in the view, but any attempts to go to othe