Is it possible to give a subtree of a database higher sizelimits (hard, unchecked) than the rest of the database? I thought I'd managed it by putting the subtree in a subordinate database, but now that gets the same limit anyway, even when I search with the subtree DN as baseDN.
--On Thursday, October 09, 2008 10:53 PM +0200 Hallvard B Furuseth h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no wrote:
Is it possible to give a subtree of a database higher sizelimits (hard, unchecked) than the rest of the database? I thought I'd managed it by putting the subtree in a subordinate database, but now that gets the same limit anyway, even when I search with the subtree DN as baseDN.
Sounds like an RFE to me.
--Quanah
--
Quanah Gibson-Mount Principal Software Engineer Zimbra, Inc -------------------- Zimbra :: the leader in open source messaging and collaboration
Quanah Gibson-Mount writes:
Is it possible to give a subtree of a database higher sizelimits (hard, unchecked) than the rest of the database? I thought I'd managed it by putting the subtree in a subordinate database, but now that gets the same limit anyway, even when I search with the subtree DN as baseDN.
Sounds like an RFE to me.
I take it that means "no":-) OK, coming up...
In the mean time I guess we can give the subtree baseDN a public password and use this:
access to dn.subtree=<baseDN> by * read access to * by dn.exact=<baseDN> by * none break limits dn.exact=<baseDN> size.hard=unlimited size.unchecked=unlimited
I don't really see anything wrong with that (at least with our ACLs), but it does make me uncomfortable.
openldap-software@openldap.org
-
Hallvard B Furuseth -
Quanah Gibson-Mount