--- Comment #3 from Howard Chu <hyc(a)openldap.org> ---
(In reply to Ondřej Kuzník from comment #2)
On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 02:22:19PM +0000, openldap-its(a)openldap.org
> Pretty sure this has always been the intended behavior, even if not spelled out
> in the RFC. You can check against the original syncrepl implementation in 2.2.
> No bug here. The consumer doesn't update its local cookie if none was received
> from the provider.
The problem is that a cookie is sent and it's an empty string, given
the client is supposed to treat them as completely opaque string, there
is enough background in the RFC to suggest it should be taken at face
I don't think you'd ever suggest TXN implementation in back-mdb sending
the same cookie ("") as the transaction identifier should be interpreted
by the client in any way either, you just expect it to send it back
unmodified. Same here.
Nevertheless, one of the motivations behind syncrepl development was to avoid
unnecessary chattiness, and this behavior has always been part of the design
and implementation. And regardless of cookies being opaque, there is an obvious
difference between empty and non-empty.
You are receiving this mail because:
You are on the CC list for the issue.