Quanah Gibson-Mount writes: ><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > slapadd -q has been entirely safe for me as long. The point of that > paragraph is that if you kill slapadd, or an error occurs during the > slapadd, you will need to wipe the database and start over. Apart from > that, it is completely safe. ;)
OK, then I suggest making its description a little less scary:-) >> Second, I'd like this option to be split: Assuming -q is safe to use >> when creating a database from scratch which will be deleted if slapadd >> fails, I'd like to turn off database checking but turn on LDIF checking. >> I suppose that would mean adding either an option which checks the LDIF >> despite -q, or an option which only turns off database checking and not >> LDIF checking. > > I disagree. Slapadd -q as it is now can still be used safely with -c, > which is entirely sufficient. That's another issue. -c says what to do when an error is detected. I'm suggesting better control over which error detection to disable. > slapadd -q was added because of research done on how and why large > database loads took forever, and adding new checks to make it take > even longer are entirely counter intuitive. I was not suggesting any new checking. I'm talking about better control over which checking to disable. -q disables both database checks and LDIF checks, I want the option of disabling only database checks. Maybe someone else could have use for a way to disable only LDIF checks, if they trust their LDIF but need database checking. Though actually I would like an option for more LDIF error checking too: Adding whatever check ldapadd does which is convenient to add to slapadd, including a "verify" function in overlays like "unique", to be called for each entry after the database is built and indexed. -- Hallvard
