https://bugs.openldap.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9719
--- Comment #3 from Howard Chu <[email protected]> --- (In reply to Ondřej Kuzník from comment #2) > On Wed, Oct 13, 2021 at 02:22:19PM +0000, [email protected] wrote: > > 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 > value. > > 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.
