[389-users] Re: Solving naming conflicts in replicated environment

William Faulk wrote:
> Oh, that's surprising to me.
>
> The LDAP spec seems to indicate that the only possible argument for a delete operation is a DN, and, while I still can't reproduce the problem with unimportant entries, access logs on replicas where deletes are being replicated to seem to imply that the remote server is just requesting a normal delete operation specifying the DN, and the access logs don't seem to show any sort of search to determine the DN from the nsuniqueid (or anything else).
>
> So, and I'm sorry to say this, but: Are you sure? Keep in mind that I'm running an old version of 389-ds: v1.3.11, I think. Maybe the replication protocol is handled in such a way that access logs are showing an action that is ultimately what's happening, even if it's not exactly how the request was actually made?
>
> (I genuinely do appreciate the input.)

Is it possible to share the entries, redacted is fine? The two on the
oddball server and the one across the others?

What Pierre is saying is that if you you want to make sure that the
nsuniqueid in the conflict entry is different from the "right" entries
on the other servers, otherwise you will delete them all.

rob
--
_______________________________________________
389-users mailing list -- 389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
To unsubscribe send an email to 389-users-leave@lists.fedoraproject.org
Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/
List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/389-users@lists.fedoraproject.org
Do not reply to spam, report it: https://pagure.io/fedora-infrastructure/new_issue