Re: (ITS#5898) test044 abort with back-ldif

[h.b.furuseth@usit.uio.no]

Pierangelo Masarati writes:
> I don't know how useful it would be to have back-ldif directly implement 
> compare, as soon as one only uses it for back-config and not for a real 
> storage with stacked overlays (however I note that back-config needs at 
> least to nicely interoperate with one overlay: slapo-syncprov).

Syncprov does use compare, and back-config doesn't provide it.
I don't know if that's a problem.

I forgot, back-config doesn't fall back to back-ldif for reads.
So I guess it's just as well to leave back-ldif as it is.

-- 
Hallvard