0

My scenario:

Access 2013 FE > SQL Server 2012 BE > Linked Server To IBM DB2

The FE Needs to be used by multiple people. I'm calling SP's in SQL Server that update the IBM DB2. The only easy way for Access to talk directly to the IBM is to install 'Client Access' on each client, which I don't really want to do, hence I use SQL Server and a DSN Less connection as the bridge.

My Problem:

The front end involves user selecting multiple items, adding them to a SQL Server table and then a SP runs that in turn updates the IBM DB2. However, if multiple users are using the FE, then they will all be adding multiple items to the one table, which I don't want, it needs to be session\client specific.

Is there a way round this?

Michael
  • 2,507
  • 8
  • 35
  • 71
  • Does it have to be on the SQL server? I am doing something similar, and I am using a local table in the Access front end. My backend only consists of an SQL server however, with no links to other dbs – parakmiakos May 04 '17 at 13:06
  • Doesn't have to be. The end game is to update the IBM DB2 without installing the 'IBM Client Access' software on each PC. – Michael May 04 '17 at 13:48
  • I re-read your question. I think what you are looking for are local temporary tables on the sql server. http://stackoverflow.com/a/2921091/3202885 – parakmiakos May 04 '17 at 13:55
  • yes, but can you create them via Access so they are client\user specific? – Michael May 04 '17 at 14:33
  • Check this answer to see how you can create a temp table. http://stackoverflow.com/a/16844765/3202885 Since you have a separate front-end per user, creating a connection to the sql server from access should create the kind of session you need. – parakmiakos May 05 '17 at 07:13

0 Answers0