Access and Postgresql

[jptpjs via AccessMonster.com]

I have an application I built in Access 2003. It is an electronic medical
records program split into front end (8 computers) and back end.
This runs flawlessly. Purchased a billing program that uses Postgresql.
This resides on the same computer as our Access backend.
We keep getting knocked out of the new billing program and never get knocked
out of my Access program. The billing software provider says that Access and
Postgresql running on the same machine is causing the problem.
Has anyone ever heard of this as we cannot go without the Access program.
I don't know much about Postgresql and any help will be appreciated.

Pete

--
Message posted via http://www.accessmonster.com

[David W. Fenton]

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localh ost.notwrote in
news:OtbUh.3384 $h8.1633@trnddc 06:

"jptpjs via AccessMonster.c om" <u14870@uwewrot e

I just wanted to make it clear that the machine
that has the postgresql data also has its own
front end and the back end. So access is running
on the same machine as the postgresql.

The only thing that I can think of that might cause "interferen ce"
is the limit on the number of concurrent connections in a
peer-to-peer network (varies with the OS, but not the "virtually
unlimited" number supported by a server OS).

But that would be per client workstation, no?

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Larry Linson]

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfen ton.com.invalid wrote in message
news:Xn******** *************** **********@127. 0.0.1...

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localh ost.notwrote in
news:OtbUh.3384 $h8.1633@trnddc 06:

>"jptpjs via AccessMonster.c om" <u14870@uwewrot e

I just wanted to make it clear that the machine
that has the postgresql data also has its own
front end and the back end. So access is running
on the same machine as the postgresql.

The only thing that I can think of that might cause "interferen ce"
is the limit on the number of concurrent connections in a
peer-to-peer network (varies with the OS, but not the "virtually
unlimited" number supported by a server OS).

But that would be per client workstation, no?

Is there a difference between a "client" and "server" machine in a
peer-to-peer? I am certainly neither a platform nor networking expert, but
thought it was "per machine". I would be happy to hear that is not the case,
though.

And (remembering the need to increase the number of allowed connections in
older Novell environments into the thousands), even so, it might interfere
with performance measurements.

Larry

[David W. Fenton]

"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localh ost.notwrote in
news:owLUh.1370 $xL6.590@trnddc 05:

>
"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfen ton.com.invalid wrote in message
news:Xn******** *************** **********@127. 0.0.1...

>"Larry Linson" <bo*****@localh ost.notwrote in
news:OtbUh.338 4$h8.1633@trndd c06:

>>"jptpjs via AccessMonster.c om" <u14870@uwewrot e

I just wanted to make it clear that the machine
that has the postgresql data also has its own
front end and the back end. So access is running
on the same machine as the postgresql.

The only thing that I can think of that might cause
"interference " is the limit on the number of concurrent
connections in a peer-to-peer network (varies with the OS, but
not the "virtually unlimited" number supported by a server OS).

But that would be per client workstation, no?

Is there a difference between a "client" and "server" machine in a
peer-to-peer?

If one is acting as a server, yes, though all versions of Windows NT
are running the server service by default (it can't be shut off
without messing up nearly everything).

>I am certainly neither a platform nor networking expert, but
thought it was "per machine". I would be happy to hear that is not
the case, though.

My only point was not to confuse server connections from client
workstations with database connections. There can be only one of the
former per workstation, while there can be multiple database
connections from a single workstation.

--
David W. Fenton http://www.dfenton.com/
usenet at dfenton dot com http://www.dfenton.com/DFA/

[Larry Linson]

"David W. Fenton" <XX*******@dfen ton.com.invalid wrote

My only point was not to confuse server
connections from client workstations with
database connections. There can be only one
of the former per workstation, while there
can be multiple database connections from
a single workstation.

Thanks, David.

[Susie DBA [MSFT]]

Access Data Projects & SQL Server are a _MUCH_ better solution that
MDB linked to _ANYTHING_

seriously

it's pain free


On Apr 12, 12:50 pm, "jptpjs via AccessMonster.c om" <u14870@uwe>
wrote:

I have an application I built in Access 2003. It is an electronic medical
records program split into front end (8 computers) and back end.
This runs flawlessly. Purchased a billing program that uses Postgresql.
This resides on the same computer as our Access backend.
We keep getting knocked out of the new billing program and never get knocked
out of my Access program. The billing software provider says that Access and
Postgresql running on the same machine is causing the problem.
Has anyone ever heard of this as we cannot go without the Access program.
I don't know much about Postgresql and any help will be appreciated.

Pete

--
Message posted viahttp://www.accessmonst er.com