[Date Prev][Date Next] [Chronological] [Thread] [Top]

Re: slapadd: which database to open

Pierangelo Masarati writes:
>Hallvard B Furuseth wrote:
>> There is only one
>> database into which any entry will go, based on the DN.
> Right.  However, slapadd does not behave like that, right now.  It 
> always tries to feed database #1 (possibly skipping "cn=Monitor" and any 
> subordinate database).

Right, but this doesn't mean -b/-n affects which database an entry will
be put in.  It merely affects whether the attempt to add the entry will
succeed.  Which is why I've been a confused by the previous messages.

>> If you just mean the user slapadds an LDIF he shouldn't have slapadded,
>> well, though.  The user might do lots of things he didn't intend to,
>> like accidentally typing rm * instead of rm something*.
> rm has noclobber to prevent misuse.  slapadd has -b/-n.

s/noclobber/-i/.  (noclobber prevents redirects from overwriting.)
And we are talking about the case of not using either option.

>> Besides, the slapadd can succeed already since there already is a
>> default database to try.
> Right.  I don't quite like that behavior (I don't like defaults, unless 
> they are very intuitive and trivial, and yes, what's intuitive and 
> trivial can be very subjective, so I don't like much defaults)

I agree, which is why I suggested to remove it:-)  But removing the
default without adding auto-choice would be an option too.

The default wasn't much of a problem before, but with the addition of
cn=config people will need to play with multiple databases.

Anyway, let's see for now if your improved error helps helps.