Linked file problem after alter table in Access 2003

psqlODBC 07.03.02

PostgreSQL 7.4.1 (Cygwin)

MS Access 2003

Win XP Pro

I imported a table with 84 fields into Access 2002 from an application
running on SCO OSR 5.0.7 that uses an old RDBMS named Unify 6.0.

It exported without incident to 7.4.1 (cygwin) on the Windows box, and also
to 7.3.4 on the SCO box.

Access 2002 could link or import from either postgresql table without
incident. I upgraded Office XP to Office 2003 yesterday, and have had some
file linking problems after some table modifications that may not be related
to the Access upgrade.

Only 13 of the 84 columns from the original table are relevant to my current
project. 71 unneeded columns were dropped from the table with pgAdminIII on
the cygwin server , and the database was vacuumed. The table data could
subsequently be viewed with pgAdminIII.

Subsequent attempts to link to the table from Access 2003 were unsuccessful.

Deleting and recreating a linked table within Access 2003 resulted in
retrieval of all 8938 rows of the table, all as identical copies of the
first row of the table, despite correct recognition of the unique primary
key from the postgresql table.

Importing the table resulted in an accurate, functioning local Access 2003
table, including the correct unique primary key.

Deleting the primary key on the postgresql side , a single varchar(6)
column, resulted in apparently normal linking and importing to Access 2003,
requiring specification of the primary key field as expected.

Recreating the primary key on the postgresql side resulted in recurrence of
the original problem, which could be resolved by deleting the primary key
again.

Clearing the table with 'Delete from table_name;' followed by repopulating
with the contents of the local Access table, using an Access append query,
resulted in the same problems.

Dropping the table, then recreating it by exporting the local Access table
resulted in apparently normal file linking and importing from postgresql.

Is this a problem with Access 2003, or is it a problem that can occur after
extensive table alteration? I don't plan to make such extensive table
modifications in the future, but do anticipate some minor modifications will
be needed.

Thanks,

David P. Lurie