Does this mean there will be a 2.2.24? And if so, could you give me a rough idea of the timeline? -Matt On Tue, 2005-03-01 at 10:21 -0800, Howard Chu wrote: > After a lot of testing I've decided to commit the patch from ITS#3546, > so it will appear in 2.2.24. The patch is already in > OPENLDAP_REL_ENG_2_2 in CVS if you'd like to test it yourself. > > The resource leak described in ITS#3448 occurs pretty rarely, i.e., only > when a persistent search connection closes uncleanly (typically due to a > network failure, or the persistent search client terminating uncleanly), > so I think it's livable until 2.3 goes into production. > > Matthew J. Smith wrote: > > >I am running into the SyncRepl provider failure discussed in ITS 3534 > >and 3546, using OpenLDAP 2.2.23. Based on those discussions, it seems > >there are 4 options: > > > >1) Apply a patch listed in 3546, which will fix this particular > >problem, but will revert to the resource leak described in ITS 3448. > > > >2) Upgrade to 2.3.x, which is labelled as alpha (which I assume means > >unfit for production) > > > >3) Downgrade to ~2.2.17 which did not seem to have this problem, but of > >course is lacking other patches included in 2.2.23 > > > >4) Use Slurp for replication instead of SyncRepl (SyncRepl has worked > >fine for me 2.2.6 through 2.2.19, for 2 replicas). > > > >Of course, I am hoping for unlisted option 5) "Upgrade to 2.2.24, which > >would include a fix for this problem", but of course I understand that > >2.2.23 is frozen, and that this fix may require much effort. > > > >So, since I am not qualified to write this fix myself, which of the > >above 4 options is the recommended path? > > > >Thank you, > >-Matt > > > >Matthew J. Smith > >University of Connecticut ITS > >This message sent at Tue Mar 1 11:56:56 2005 > >PGP Key: http://web.uconn.edu/dotmatt/matt.asc > > > > > > > >
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part