Ian, Jesse, Andrew and Aaron. Thanks for the quick responses. I've forward them all along to him.
Andrew, your response makes it sound like you regularly work with Postgres. I've had a bit of a problem, and I'm wondering if you know if this has been resolved. (If you don't know off-hand, I can dig around, and we have a workaround in place, so it's OK). We've had a problem with OLE objects. I found documentation to create a type lo object, and I did that, but it seemed flaky. Probably half of our business is ran through a software package called Natural Gas Manager. It's written in Access 2000, and allows basically any SQL server application in the back end. We are currently using it against a SQL 6.5 server, and I have it installed and working on a SQL 7 server. The SQL 7 server is basically a backup. I have a PostgreSQL box up and running, and I am hoping that we can run against it, however it appears that the ODBC connection is dropped immediately after accessing a table with a type lo field. The objects do get there, but it appears that I would need to relink the table after every access (every row). This won't work. Since this table basically just contains logos for the associated customer/supplier, I COULD (and am in the process of actually) create an Access Database, with tables housing lo objects. Obviously, this solution totally sucks, and also it appeared that Postgres was aware of this, and working to make this more friendly as they went ahead. I was wondering if type lo objects are natively supported by the database, and also if I'll need to wait for an ODBC update to resolve that, or if we should be OK if we just upgrade PostgreSQL. Again, If you aren't sure off-hand, I can dig for it myself. I'm not trying to get out of doing my job here... :) Thanks. Kev. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew J. Kopciuch" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, December 03, 2002 10:29 AM Subject: Re: (clug-talk) Postgresql on RH 7.2 > On Tuesday 03 December 2002 08:42, Kevin Anderson wrote: > > Good morning all. > > > > > > > > We have a consultant in here periodically who is having a bit of a problem > > getting PostgreSQL up and running. > > > > He's running Red Hat 7.2, and is trying to install Postgres 7.2.3 (RPM) > > from the Postgres website. > > > > He would be using the RH7.3 rpms from the website. There are no RH7.2 based > rpms on the postgres site. I don't think that will bring any harm. I > believe they have maintained a consistency for all RH7.x rpms. This may have > changed for the RH8.x rpms. I am not sure. > > (read -> compile from source ;-)) > > Everything needed is in the ftp directory: > > ftp://ftp.postgresql.org/pub/binary/v7.2.3/RPMS/redhat-7.3 > > > BTW: > > Postgres has officially released version 7.3. PGDG have not rolled binaries > yet, but one of the developers hacked the spec file and created some found > here: > > http://www.joeconway.com/ > > Use at your will. The PGDG hasn't released offical binaries yet ... but > should shortly. > > > I received the following message from him requesting help. > > > > He does not have this file on his machine, and I believe from his > > description that it's trying to find it in the RPM package itself. > > > > Anyone have any advice I can pass along? > > > > Kev. > > > > > > I have attached a file documenting PGDG packaging > explanations/descriptions/reasons etc.
