On Wed, 2005-12-14 at 15:02 -0800, Howard Chu wrote: > This also brings to mind another favorite topic - eliminating slurpd... > Right now we can eliminate slurpd using a separate slapd instance > configured with a back-ldap pointing at the slave, and a syncrepl > consumer pointing at the master. A separate slapd instance must be used > because the back-ldap suffix would be identical to the master's suffix, > and we don't allow multiple databases to share the same suffix. While > the current code already provides this functionality, it's inconvenient > because it requires a slapd instance per replica. > > I was thinking about allowing certain databases to be configured as > "hidden/shadow" databases, with the same suffix as an existing database. > These hidden databases would never be selected by select_backend(), so > they would never be used to satisfy any incoming requests. They would > only serve as platforms for configuring syncrepl consumers. This would > allow multiple replication targets to be configured using a single > slapd. Any objections?
I think it's a great idea; it would also solve the issue with syncrepl that we can't use it when the master is behind a firewall that doesn't allow LDAP connections inwards. I'm setting up a 3 slapd test (test045) that checks this. I note that it works just fine with the "consumer" overlay on the back-ldap and the "slurprov" overlay on the slave... p. Ing. Pierangelo Masarati Responsabile Open Solution SysNet s.n.c. Via Dossi, 8 - 27100 Pavia - ITALIA http://www.sys-net.it ------------------------------------------ Office: +39.02.23998309 Mobile: +39.333.4963172 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ------------------------------------------
