Received: from golem.pgsql.com (fourpalms.org [64.3.68.148] (may be forged)) by mail.postgresql.org (8.11.1/8.11.1) with ESMTP id eBRGDmL25997 for ; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 11:13:48 -0500 (EST) (envelope-from lockhart@alumni.caltech.edu) Received: from alumni.caltech.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by golem.pgsql.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 8DB7E17C5E; Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:38:29 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <3A4A1B05.7D0B1140@alumni.caltech.edu> Date: Wed, 27 Dec 2000 16:38:29 +0000 From: Thomas Lockhart Organization: Yes X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.73 [en] (X11; I; Linux 2.2.15-4mdksmp i686) X-Accept-Language: en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Cedar Cox Cc: pgsql-interfaces@postgresql.org Subject: Re: textcat() and ODBC driver References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Archive-Number: 200012/223 X-Sequence-Number: 569 > The response I got was that the odbc code is not smart enough to nest > textcat functions. A recent discovery ;) brings me to this question, Why > is textcat being used? Why not just use the || operator? Unless there's > something I don't know it seems to be a direct replacement for the & > operator in Access/VB. Thoughts? Someone willing to change it? There *may* be some translation in the ODBC driver to get from an ODBC function call to textcat() (I haven't looked at it since last spring). But I'm pretty sure that there is no "operator mapping" in the driver, and that Access itself is converting from the (nonstandard) ampersand to some function call. Have you tried forming the query with the SQL92 "||" operator? Or is this some automatic query from Access which you cannot, uh, access? - Thomas