Re: Check for updatedn (Was: commit: ldap/servers/slapd/overlays rwm.c)

["Kurt D. Zeilenga" <Kurt@OpenLDAP.org>]

I think we likely should have:

        SLAP_SHADOW(bd) - is a shadow database
        SLAP_SYNC_SHADOW(bd) - is a syncrepl shadow database
        SLAP_SLURP_SHADOW(bd) - is a slurped shadow database

and:
        be_slurp_update(op)
                TRUE if SLAP_SLURP_SHADOW and is update DN
        be_sync_update(op)
                TRUE if SLAP_SYNC_SHADOW and is internal sync operation.

and (if useful):
        be_shadow_update(op)
                TRUE if be_slurp_update() or be_sync_update()


At 10:29 AM 4/7/2004, Jong wrote:
>vote for making it as a new wrapper (like is_update_dn(op)) or add flags to
>be_isupdate(op). We may need them individually.
>Or, how about using sl / sr prefix to names referring to slurpd / syncrepl ?
>sth like be_sl_isupdate(op), be_sr_isupdate(op), and be_isupdate(op) for
>both.....
>- Jong-Hyuk
>
>----- Original Message ----- 
>From: "Pierangelo Masarati" <ando@sys-net.it>
>To: <jongchoi@OpenLDAP.org>
>Cc: <openldap-devel@OpenLDAP.org>
>Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 1:11 PM
>Subject: Check for updatedn (Was: commit: ldap/servers/slapd/overlays rwm.c)
>
>
>> > updatedn fix for syncrepl
>>
>> What about introducing a new wrapper like
>> is_update_dn( op ) that checks whether
>> the o_ndn field is allowed to update, or
>> add this functionality to the be_isupdate()
>> wrapper, or add flags to be_isupdate()?
>>
>> I think the same couple of calls will
>> almost always appear in the same places.
>>
>> Ciao, Ando.
>>
>> -- 
>> Pierangelo Masarati
>> mailto:pierangelo.masarati@sys-net.it
>>
>>
>>
>>