Re: int8 vs text in odbc link

Thanks to everyone who responded.  I created a table
with int4 fields; and they appear as long integers in
MS Access.

After a review of the data fields, I've decided I
don't need int8 fields.  Last night I dumped the
schema of the database, changed int8 fields to int4;
and moved the data to new tables.  The process was not
nearly as painful as I thought it would be.  I'm
currently creating unique indexes.  At various points,
I used pg_dump, a line of perl (thanks again,
Dominic), psql -c, copy, and \i.  All-in-all, it
turned out to be a good exercise for this newbie.
Although, my brain is still a little tired.

Thanks again,

Andrew Gould

--- Richard Huxton <dev@archonet.com> wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Tom Lane" <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>
> To: "Andrew Gould" <andrewgould@yahoo.com>
> Cc: <pgsql-general@postgresql.org>
> Sent: Sunday, October 15, 2000 9:12 PM
> Subject: Re: [GENERAL] int8 vs text in odbc link
>
>
> > Andrew Gould <andrewgould@yahoo.com> writes:
> > > Unfortunately, all of the columns of the data
> > > type int8 are interpreted as text in MS Access
> 97 when
> > > you look at the design view of the table.
> >
> > Offhand it looks like our ODBC driver will report
> the type of an int8
> > field as "SQL_BIGINT" (-5), which may or may not
> be a standard ODBC
> > type code --- and even if it is, Access might not
> know it.  Anybody
> > know?
> >
> Access 97 has Integer as 16-bit and Long Integer as
> 32-bit - those are the
> only options available AFAICT.
>
> - Richard Huxton
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Messenger - Talk while you surf!  It's FREE.
http://im.yahoo.com/