[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
(Was ITS#4333) crash in back meta
- To: Pierangelo Masarati <ando@sys-net.it>, openldap-software@OpenLDAP.org
- Subject: (Was ITS#4333) crash in back meta
- From: Aaron Richton <richton@nbcs.rutgers.edu>
- Date: Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:58:44 -0500 (EST)
- In-reply-to: <43134.131.175.154.56.1137075853.squirrel@131.175.154.56>
- References: <200601121404.k0CE4oZf022077@boole.openldap.org> <43134.131.175.154.56.1137075853.squirrel@131.175.154.56>
[moving to -software because now I'm asking usage]
> Furthermore, it __should__ be more efficient to use back-relay + slapo-rwm
> for the purpose of binding to a local database with a virtual naming
> context.
I'd love to move this to back-relay and not have the network involved, but
I don't see how to do "translucent with back-relay" behavior without quite
a few rewriteRules (and even then I'm not sure it would work).
I mean, take the test034 "remote" example, essentially
database bdb
suffix "o=translucent"
overlay translucent
translucent_no_glue
uri ldap://localhost:9011/
obviously making a superset of o=translucent on 9012 (relative to original
o=translucent 9011).
Say I wanted a translucent on the :9011 server in slapd.1.conf. I'll
concede to "suffix o=translucent_new" being required (:9011 can't serve
two different o=translucent). How would I specify:
database bdb
suffix "o=translucent_new"
overlay translucent
relay "o=translucent"
is that actually valid?