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 a
giant select to make sure that all the records are still there.) When I 

At this point, I'm suspecting that the problem may be more related to my
inexperience with Access than with postgres.  Tom had thought that the
problem might be related to the lack of a column that access recognized as
the unique identifier, and I finally found a page last night that discusses
the exact behavior that I'm seeing. (Although I still haven't figured out
how to fix it.)

http://joelburton.com/resources/pgaccess/faq.html  has some mention of the
problem and a link to the MS knowledge base, but I'm seeing behavior from
the MS client that leads me to believe the problem is closer to the user. :)
(I tried to set up the view so that the user couldn't change the ID or set
the timestamp of the record (each record is a work journal entry, so there's
an ID as well as a timestamp.))

-ron "who's off to sub to pgsql-odbc now"


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hiroshi Inoue [mailto:Inoue@tpf.co.jp] 
> Sent: Saturday, May 04, 2002 7:09 AM
> To: Tom Lane
> Cc: Ron Snyder; pgsql-general@postgresql.org; pgsql-hackers
> Subject: RE: [GENERAL] Using views and MS access via odbc 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Tom Lane [mailto:tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us]
> > 
> > "Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp> 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 0 seem to make no one happy.
> 
> regards,
> Hiroshi Inoue
> 
> *** postgres.c.orig	Thu Feb 28 08:17:01 2002
> --- postgres.c	Sat May  4 22:53:03 2002
> ***************
> *** 805,811 ****
>   					if (DebugLvl > 1)
>   						elog(DEBUG, 
> "ProcessQuery");
>   
> ! 					if (querytree->originalQuery)
>   					{
>   						/* original 
> stmt can override default tag string */
>   						
> ProcessQuery(querytree, plan, dest, completionTag);
> --- 805,811 ----
>   					if (DebugLvl > 1)
>   						elog(DEBUG, 
> "ProcessQuery");
>   
> ! 					if 
> (querytree->originalQuery || length(querytree_list) == 1)
>   					{
>   						/* original 
> stmt can override default tag string */
>   						
> ProcessQuery(querytree, plan, dest, completionTag);
> 

Sat, 4 May 2002 14:40:07 -0700 
Ron Snyder <snyder@roguewave.com>
Re: Using views and MS access via odbc 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ron Snyder [mailto:snyder@roguewave.com]
> 
> 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. 

regards,
Hiroshi Inoue

Mon, 6 May 2002 08:15:09 +0900
"Hiroshi Inoue" <Inoue@tpf.co.jp>
Re: Using views and MS access via odbc 