Thursday, January 11, 2024

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

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.)
389-users mailing list --
To unsubscribe send an email to
Fedora Code of Conduct:
List Guidelines:
List Archives:
Do not reply to spam, report it:

No comments:

Post a Comment