|
Subject:
|
Access 2000 Write Conflict on Text Field
|
|
Posted By:
|
seananderson
|
Post Date:
|
12/19/2006 6:44:53 AM
|
I have a text field on an Access 2000 form, which is for a 255 character text field in a linked table to SQL. If I attempt to exceed the 255 chatacters, it limits the text box (as expected) but then gives the error saying that this record has been changed by another user since you started editing it. If you save the record, you will overwrite the changes the other user made.
We have checked around for solutions to this and have referred to the MS Knowledgebase article which talks about a BIT field problem or fields defined as floating point, which we know is not the case, as the table does not contain such.
Does anyone have any suggestions or (of course) better still has someone found the solution to this?
Regards,
Sean Anderson
|
|
Reply By:
|
leehambly
|
Reply Date:
|
12/19/2006 7:05:44 AM
|
What are you trying to do, limit the number of characters entered into the textbox? You could try a OnKeyPress(or similar?) evaluation of the field length and pop up a message at, say, 250 chars and simply set the field position to the end of the 250 chars, so further typing would overwrite the last few chars? Food for thought?
|
|
Reply By:
|
seananderson
|
Reply Date:
|
12/19/2006 7:12:17 AM
|
I would like to resolve the problem at source rather than write in a workaround for it. Although the OnKeyPress could be written to adapt and limit the text box, the reality is that there are hundreds of fields in many, many forms for a number of applications, so it's not a feasible solution here.
Linked to a 255 character column, Access limits the text box to 255 characters, but throws this error when you reach 255 characters and save the record
Regards,
Sean Anderson
|
|
Reply By:
|
mmcdonal
|
Reply Date:
|
12/19/2006 7:27:35 AM
|
That sounds like a SQL error, not an Access error. Did you research the issue for SQL Server?
Perhaps you can change the data type in SQL Server to a a larger value, and leave the form value at 255.
I think the other "user" is the database application throwing the error.
Here is an interesting work around: Put a timestamp field in each table where you are having this problem, and allow nulls, and leave it null. Use the linked table manager to update all your table connections. Apparently this magically resolves locking issues.
Did that help?
mmcdonal
|
|
Reply By:
|
seananderson
|
Reply Date:
|
12/19/2006 7:45:29 AM
|
Thanks; I agree that it could be the SQL server acting as the second user and will investigate that route.
Have the timestamps already, but it made no difference.
Regards,
Sean Anderson
|
