From pitpalme@gmail.com Thu Nov 12 18:30:51 2009 From: pitpalme@gmail.com To: openldap-bugs@openldap.org Subject: Re: (ITS#6368) Bug in deleting entry in MirrorMode Date: Thu, 12 Nov 2009 18:30:50 +0000 Message-ID: <200911121830.nACIUoQi073212@boole.openldap.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============7621560756465997858==" --===============7621560756465997858== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable --001636988beae98b80047830ba81 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dwindows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable pitpalme(a)gmail.com wrote: > masarati(a)aero.polimi.it wrote: > > pitpalme(a)gmail.com wrote: >> >> I do see attributes reflecting state after "modify" (which changes >>> "sn" attribute). >>> Where exactly should I expect to see a note about "glue state"? >>> Is output from "-d Any" helpful to figure what's going on (or wrong)? >>> >> >> My understanding of your previous message was that you got a positive >> result from delete, but an "Already exists" from a subsequent add. >> > > That=3D92s korrekt. > > > I inferred that you checked about the existence of the object and you go=3D t >> a negative result. >> > > In my current test scenario I do not check. > I assume a non-error on =3D84delete=3D93 in fact =3D84deletes=3D93, so I ju= st che=3D ck if > response > code success (in Perl: '$res->code =3D3D=3D3D Net::LDAP::LDAP_SUCCESS=3D91). > > > Apparently, my guess was wrong. In that case, you probably hit >> ITS#6097 . >> > > *hmmm* Good idea, thanks. > But after reading ITS description I don=3D92t think it=3D92s what troubles= m=3D e. > We don=3D92t actually neither have =3D84multi master mode=3D93, but =3D84mi= rror m=3D ode=3D93 and > writes are done only on exactly one server, so there should not be a prob=3D lem > with second server producing a concurrent write/modify. > I=3D92d expect the delete to be correctly propagated, but I can=3D92t check= i=3D t is > is, simply because I have to little knowledge to read debug log correctly=3D . Follow up: I modified my test Perl script to do a 'ldapSearch' after deleting and it returns zero as number of found entries. Sadly I have no idea, how to emulate '-MM' when using 'Net::LDAP' and it's search function, so I can't check for 'glue' entries this way. --=3D20 Regards, Peter --001636988beae98b80047830ba81 Content-Type: text/html; charset=3Dwindows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
pitpalme(a)gmail.com=3DA0wrote:
That=3D92s korrekt.


I inferred that you checked about the existence of the object and you got a negative result.

In my current test scenario I do not check.
I assume a non-error on =3D84delete=3D93 in fact =3D84deletes=3D93, so I just= check=3D if response
code success (in Perl: '$res->code =3D3D=3D3D Net::LDAP::LDAP_SUCCESS= =3D91=3D ).
*hmmm* Good idea, thanks.
But after reading ITS description I don=3D92t think it=3D92s =3DA0what troubl= es m=3D e.
We don=3D92t actually neither have =3D84multi master mode=3D93, but =3D84mirr= or mod=3D e=3D93 and writes are done only on exactly one server, so there should not be= =3D a problem with second server producing a concurrent write/modify.
I=3D92d expect the delete to be correctly propagated, but I can=3D92t check i= t =3D is is, simply because I have to little knowledge to read debug log correctl=3D y.

Follow up:

I modifie=3D d my test Perl script to do a 'ldapSearch' after deleting and it re=3D turns zero as number of found entries.
Sadly I have no idea, how to emulate '-MM' when using 'Net=3D ::LDAP' and it's search function, so I can't check for 'glu=3D e' entries this way.
--
Regards,
Peter
--001636988beae98b80047830ba81-- --===============7621560756465997858==--