[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> Full_Name: Hallvard B Furuseth >> Version: HEAD >> OS: Linux >> URL: >> Submission from: (NULL) (129.240.6.233) >> Submitted by: hallvard >> >> >> With the latest back-ldif/ldif.c (rev 1.99), >> ./run -b ldif test048-syncrepl-multiproxy >> breaks with "master and P1 slave databases differ" and >> ./run -b ldif test018-syncreplication-persist >> when patched to not reject $BACKEND = ldif >> breaks with "producer and consumer databases differ". >> >> The offender is "rename to same DN" (ITS#5319), i.e. rev 1.99. >> Unless there is a big "duh!" in it, it exposed a syncrepl bug. > > Yes, thanks. The consumer assumed that an entry being renamed would have no > other modifications associated with it. This assumption is wrong. There are no > rename ops in test018, but apparently back-ldif is not returning the RDN with > the same case as the original entry, so syncrepl assumes a rename (that only > changed letter case) was done. > > Still looking at the fix.
This is mostly fixed in HEAD. The diff still doesn't compare because some cn values are in the wrong order. I think you need to check what back-ldif is doing that triggers the false detection of a rename op. -- -- Howard Chu CTO, Symas Corp. http://www.symas.com Director, Highland Sun http://highlandsun.com/hyc/ Chief Architect, OpenLDAP http://www.openldap.org/project/
