IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GET AN ACCOUNT, please write an
email to Administrator. User accounts are meant only to access repo
and report issues and/or generate pull requests.
This is a purpose-specific Git hosting for
BaseALT
projects. Thank you for your understanding!
Только зарегистрированные пользователи имеют доступ к сервису!
Для получения аккаунта, обратитесь к администратору.
When using w2k3 linked attributes we are allowed to have multiple
values on a single valued attribute. This happens when the other
values are deleted.
Setting the RELAX control tell the ldb-tdb backend to not check for
this on replace, which means the caller has to check for single valued
violations.
It isn't very useful just saying that a control is not supported,
without saying which one is the problem
Pair-Programmed-With: Andrew Bartlett <abartlet@samba.org>
- The outside API contains "DN" string arguments: Bad. Since in this way we
fully rely on the outside calls regarding the right DN format. Solution: Use
always a "struct ldb_dn" entry. Since this one is interchangeable and we can
handle it in our preferred way.
When we rename or modify a record, we need to update the indexes at
the same time. It is important that we use the DN of the actual
message that is stored in the database to do this, not the DN that was
passed in by the user. If the two differ in case then the index
records needs to use the 'real' record DN, as index handling is
currently case sensitive.
I think this is better since "ldb_backend_connect" and "ldb_connect" which
propagate those values should return only LDB constants. Therefore a conversion
(especially for "-1") would be needed.
This gets rid of the @IDXPTR approach to in-transaction indexing,
instead using an in-memory tdb to hold index values during a
transaction. This also cleans up a lot of the internal indexing logic,
hopefully making it easier to understand.
One of the big changes is in memory management, with a lot more use
made of talloc tricks to avoid copying dn lists, and shortcuts used to
avoid high intersection and union calculation costs.
The overall result is that a re-provision on my laptop goes from 48s
to a bit over 10s.
When you try to add a 2nd value to a single valued attribute you get
LDB_ERR_ATTRIBUTE_OR_VALUE_EXISTS. w2k8-r2 join to s4 relies on this
error, doing a replace after it sees the error
With unique indexes, any rename of a record that has an attribute that
is uniquely indexed needs to be done as a delete followed by an add,
otherwse you'll get an error that the attribute value already exists.
Extended operations return was not going thorugh the same patch as others
leaving the ctx around. Plus we were neutralizing the spy too early so that it
didn't set the request_terminated flag as it should have.
This should hopefully fix the failures in the build farm.
In some code paths ltdb_context was still referenced even after we were returned
an error by one of the callbacks. Because the interface assumes that once an
error is returned the ldb_request may be freed, and because the ltdb_context was
allocated as a child of the request, this might cause access to freed memory.
Allocate the ltdb_context on ldb, and keep track of what's going on with the
request by adding a spy children on it. This way even if the request is freed
before the ltdb_callback is called, we will safely free the ctx and just quietly
return.
behavior anyway, and given we can only have one transaction active per
ldb context this is the only sane model we can support.
Fix ldb_tdb transactions, we could return back with an error with neither
committing nor canceling the actual tdb transaction in some error paths
within the ltdb commit and cancel transaction paths.
Added also some debugging to trace what was going on.
Separate again the public from the private headers.
Add a new header specific for modules.
Also add service function for modules as now ldb_context and ldb_module are
opaque structures for them.
ldb indexing can cause huge files, and huge memory usage. This
experiment allows us to keep indexes in memory during a transaction,
then to write the indexes to disk when the transaction completes. The
result is that the db is much smaller (we have seen improvements of
about 100x in file size) and memory usage during large transactions is
also greatly reduced
Note that this patch uses the unusual strategy of putting pointers
into a ldb (and thus into a tdb). This works because the pointers are
only there during a transaction, so the pointers are not exposed to
any other users of the database. The pointers allow us to avoid some
really bad allocation problems with tdb record allocation during the
re-indexing.
- don't do the lockall operation on the tdb during a ldb search if in
a transaction, as this would prevent modifies by callbacks as well
(This used to be commit aa9ab431e071882f42ebc882e809ae1d4b8778d4)
