Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    19

    Angry Unanswered: Pulling my hair out with locking.

    SQL Server 2000 - Backend
    Access 2000 Runtime - Front End
    Connecting via ODBC

    I have read loads and loads of examples and looked at other sources of info for help on this but am struggleing big time.

    I have multiple users working in the same database table. The problem is they often get an error message about the record has been changed and would they like to save the changes to clipboard etc etc.

    I basicly want to implement pessimistic locking for my tables. So once a user has started to edit that record nobody else can get to it.

    Can anybody help?

    Many thanks

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Hi

    There can be reasons other than locking issues that cause this message. For example, if your table contains a Bit field which contains Nulls then it will cause problems in an Access linked table. I also recall reading that adding a Timestamp field can help out too.

    HTH
    Testimonial:
    pootle flump
    ur codings are working excelent.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    19
    Sorry I should have put in the first post.

    I have a Time Stamp field, a PK and have no Bit fields.

    Cheers

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Does the Access--> Tools--> Options--> Advanced--> Default Record Locking --> Edited Record option help?
    Testimonial:
    pootle flump
    ur codings are working excelent.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Northamptonshire
    Posts
    19
    Nope. Access treats all ODBC connections as 'No Locks'.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    One Flump in One Place
    Posts
    14,912
    Have you considered wrapping up your data access and editing in sprocs and disconnecting your FE? Many on this forum would advocate such an approach irrespective of the problems you are having. In that case at least you can handle concurrency issues within SQL Server (as well as further security benefits etc).
    Testimonial:
    pootle flump
    ur codings are working excelent.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •