Howard Chu wrote:
> Ah, ok. So, do you think we need to integrate this patch?
Do you mean: in 2.3? It might be a good idea in case we want all
versions to be completely interoperable. Otherwise, as the code is now,
2.4 tolerates 2.3 (and 2.2, AFAIK), while 2.2 and 2.3 do not tolerate
2.4 (or, which is worse, tolerate but don't understand 2.4: issues could
arise when comparing CSNs generated by different versions, which only
2.4 correctly handles by normalizing to its form). Eventually, this
could be a problem as soon as someone tries to use 2.4 as master and 2.3
as slave.
p.
Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
OpenLDAP Core Team
SysNet s.r.l.
via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
http://www.sys-net.it
---------------------------------------
Office: +39 02 23998309
Mobile: +39 333 4963172
Email: pierangelo.masarati(a)sys-net.it
---------------------------------------
Pierangelo Masarati wrote:
> hyc(a)symas.com wrote:
>
>> It seems a bit odd to be introducing support for that format now in 2.4, when
>> it was completely unsupported in 2.2 and 2.3. I.e., why wasn't this issue
>> raised during the migration to/thru either 2.2 or 2.3?
>
> Probably because until 2.4
>
> #define csnValidate blobValidate
>
> and as such any incompatible CSN was silently ignored. So this has
> always been broken, only 2.4 detects the inconsistency, but behaved
> badly (assert) until your fix.
Ah, ok. So, do you think we need to integrate this patch?
--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
Gavin Henry wrote:
> <quote who="hyc(a)OpenLDAP.org">
>> Full_Name: Howard Chu
>> Version: HEAD/RE24
>> OS:
>> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
>> Submission from: (NULL) (76.168.84.21)
>> Submitted by: hyc
>>
>>
>> The comparison fails after the first modify step, an entry that should
>> have been
>> deleted is still present on the slave.
>>
>> The presentlist is still left over from the initial query, and hasn't been
>> emptied yet. This appears to be a missing step when the initial query
>> transitions from Refresh to Persist mode.
> On RE24 mine on AMD64 Dual doesn't get that far. It dies on test033 with:
>
> Comparison failed - database not created correctly.
>
> I'll provide all details shortly, or best to create a new ticket?
I already fixed that in HEAD. See the commit logs.
--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
<quote who="hyc(a)OpenLDAP.org">
> Full_Name: Howard Chu
> Version: HEAD/RE24
> OS:
> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
> Submission from: (NULL) (76.168.84.21)
> Submitted by: hyc
>
>
> The comparison fails after the first modify step, an entry that should
> have been
> deleted is still present on the slave.
>
> The presentlist is still left over from the initial query, and hasn't been
> emptied yet. This appears to be a missing step when the initial query
> transitions from Refresh to Persist mode.
>
>
On RE24 mine on AMD64 Dual doesn't get that far. It dies on test033 with:
Comparison failed - database not created correctly.
I'll provide all details shortly, or best to create a new ticket?
>
Full_Name: Howard Chu
Version: HEAD/RE24
OS:
URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
Submission from: (NULL) (76.168.84.21)
Submitted by: hyc
The comparison fails after the first modify step, an entry that should have been
deleted is still present on the slave.
The presentlist is still left over from the initial query, and hasn't been
emptied yet. This appears to be a missing step when the initial query
transitions from Refresh to Persist mode.
hyc(a)symas.com wrote:
> It seems a bit odd to be introducing support for that format now in 2.4, when
> it was completely unsupported in 2.2 and 2.3. I.e., why wasn't this issue
> raised during the migration to/thru either 2.2 or 2.3?
Probably because until 2.4
#define csnValidate blobValidate
and as such any incompatible CSN was silently ignored. So this has
always been broken, only 2.4 detects the inconsistency, but behaved
badly (assert) until your fix.
p.
Ing. Pierangelo Masarati
OpenLDAP Core Team
SysNet s.r.l.
via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA
http://www.sys-net.it
---------------------------------------
Office: +39 02 23998309
Mobile: +39 333 4963172
Email: pierangelo.masarati(a)sys-net.it
---------------------------------------
<quote who="Sam Varshavchik">
> No problem.
>
> Here are the fixes diff-ed against CVS HEAD:
>
> http://www.tldp.org/manpages/openldap-2.4.6-manpatch.txt
>
> This is also attached to this message.
Thanks, I'll get to this soon.
Gavin.
Dan.Oscarsson(a)tietoenator.com wrote:
> Full_Name: Dan Oscarsson
> Version: 2.3.32
> OS: SLES 10
> URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
> Submission from: (NULL) (193.15.240.60)
> From this I suspect that it is the cache of which parent node belongs to
> that gets corrupted. Or can it be something else?
> What more could I do to trace down the bug?
> I do not know if the above information is enough for you to find what is
> wrong? Cannot include data as it contains company internal information and
> a simple test program did not give the same error.
> I have looked at the code, but it takes some time to understand it when
> doing it for the first time. maybe som debugging code could be added
> find the place where the bug is.
This isn't a lot of information to go on. If you can create a test program
that shows the problem occurring, using dummy data, that would help.
--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
Full_Name: Howard Chu
Version: 2.4
OS:
URL: ftp://ftp.openldap.org/incoming/
Submission from: (NULL) (76.168.84.21)
Submitted by: hyc
Performing a search as rootDN with both an explicit sizelimit and pagedresults
causes the sizelimit to be ignored. Using the sizelimit and no pagedresults
correctly honors the specified limit.
This may also affect RE23, I haven't looked.
aej(a)wpi.edu wrote:
> Full_Name: Allan E. Johannesen
> Version: 2.4.6
> OS: Linux EL 4
> URL: http://users.wpi.edu/~aej/schema_init.diff
> Submission from: (NULL) (130.215.24.208)
>
>
> Old CSN stamps are not accepted by 2.4.6. I guess they must be _very_ old,
> since there is a "2/3" CSN conversion in the release.
>
> The stamps are of the form: YYYYMMDDHH:MM:SSZ
That's the format from when CSNs were introduced in OpenLDAP 2.1.
> Perhaps I'm the only person in the OpenLDAP universe who might see this problem,
> but I adapted the 2/3 conversion for these old fields.
It seems a bit odd to be introducing support for that format now in 2.4, when
it was completely unsupported in 2.2 and 2.3. I.e., why wasn't this issue
raised during the migration to/thru either 2.2 or 2.3?
I'm inclined to reject this patch; you can fix it in LDIF using sed or perl
and never have to think about it again.
--
-- Howard Chu
Chief Architect, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com
Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/