tis 2007-11-20 klockan 07:09 -0800 skrev Howard Chu:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> > If this looks correct to you, what code should I add to fix it?
> > It would be better if one of you who knows the code better than me could
> > do that. I can test and see if it works.
> >
> Thanks for your investigation; this explanation makes sense. You can test
> this
> simply by disabling the statement in bdb_cache_modrdn() which sets the
> NO_KIDS
> flags:
I have tested and it fixed my reduced test case. Running full test still
failes.
So I suspected it might have to do with CACHE_ENTRY_NO_GRANDKIDS
and tested by removing the test for CACHE_ENTRY_NO_GRANDKIDS in dn2id.c
***************
*** 1044,1058 ****
if ( cx->prefix == DN_SUBTREE_PREFIX ) {
bdb_idl_append( cx->ids, cx->tmp );
cx->need_sort = 1;
! /*if ( !(cx->ei->bei_state & CACHE_ENTRY_NO_GRANDKIDS))
{*/
! {
to get it to go down in the tree.
This time even my full test works, from what I can see. Though this may
not be the correct way to do it, and I do not know if something else
may go wrong.
It looks like the setting and usage of CACHE_ENTRY_NO_GRANDKIDS and
CACHE_ENTRY_NO_KIDS have to be looked over. From what I can see they are
only used in cache.c, dn2id.c and modrdn.c in back-bdb/hdb.
Should I try something else?
Regards,
Dan
--
Dan Oscarsson
TietoEnator Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Box 85
201 20 Malmo, Sweden
