[Date Prev][Date Next]
Re: (ITS#5898) test044 abort with back-ldif
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.