Re: Access to Oracle - a weird problem of connectivity

Thank you for that tip. I didn't know that there was such a check box - however we can fully access records on table on QQ40 with Access (r/w/d/a) but not the other table which remains stubbonly read-only. Logging directly onto QQ40 both tables are (r/w/d/a). Anyway I'll check this tomorrow. Chris B.

In article <3a38f1e8.693647_at_spamkiller.news-ituk.to>,   See Message body for real address wrote:
> Check the DSN properties for the ODBC connection to QQ40 if it is
 different from
> the one for QQ03...be sure the 'connect as read-only' options is not
 checked...
>
> chrisbrady_at_my-deja.com wrote:
>
> >Access to Oracle - a weird problem of connectivity
> >
> >We have two Oracle servers QQ03 and QQ40 - both are running Oracle
 8.x
> >
> >On these are identically named tables - creg_members and
> >internet_registrees
> >
> >All four tables have identical access permissions for my logon id to
> >read, append, update and delete records.
> >
> >Using Access 8 on my client PC (running W95) I can link to the tables
> >on QQ03. When the two tables on this are opened I can read, append,
> >update and delete records on both of them. OK so far.
> >
> >However, when I link to the replicated tables on QQ40 I can only
 read,
> >append, update and delete records on creg_members. The other table -
> >internet_registrees - is read only.
> >
> >Even weirder is that when I log on to both servers directly - using
 the
> >same logon id that I use when I link to them with Access - I can do
> >all I want - read, append, update and delete records on both tables
 on
> >both servers.
> >
> >So why is it that on identically set up servers with identically
> >replicated tables I can read, append, update and delete records to
 both
> >tables when I logon to the servers directly. But when I use Access to
> >link to QQ03 I can also can read, append, update and delete records
 to
> >both tables. But when I use Access to link to QQ40 I can only read,
> >append, update and delete records to one table, whilst the other
> >becomes read only?
> >
> >Any ideas would be gratefully received.
> >
> >Many thanks - Chris B.
> >
> >
> >Sent via Deja.com
> >http://www.deja.com/
>
>

Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/ Received on Thu Dec 14 2000 - 16:39:31 CST