[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: back-sql considered experimental?
> I have been trying to get a 32/64 bit version of this module working with
> little luck. Here are some details:
> - Version 2.1.25
if you want to see any improvement in this backend, I strongly suggest you
test HEAD code (or at least 2.2.latest, which is almost the same).
> - Database TimesTen 4.5.x.
> - OS: Solaris 2.9
> - Compiler: cc: Sun C 5.5 Patch 112760-09 2004/03/31
I don't have access to that kind of system (any of the above) so if
there's any portability issue, it's very unlikely I can be of any help.
> - The examples did not work as I expected; my expectations may be wrong.
> - documentDN attribute is missing definition in inetOrgPerson schema.
I'll blindly review those examples, but, as I said before, there's very
little I can do to test them. Maybe you can try with postgres or mysql,
to provide some baseline testing we can share to work out some of the
> - A query such as
> ldapsearch -L -v -D "cn=root,o=sql,c=RU" -w secret -s sub -p 20001 -h
> myhost.mycompany.com -b "cn=root,o=sql,c=RU" "(objectClass=*)"
> returns nothing. Anything wrong here ? I see request reaching the
there is tons of possible causes; if you (and I :) have time, we can try
some of the steps one by one, and you can post some info (e.g.debug output
with -d -1)
> - 64 bit causes bus errors.
> - BACKSQL_TRACE macro causes compilation errors.
I haven't tried it for a while, I'll check. But I repeat, let's work with
HEAD or 2.2.latest; 2.1 will be soon historical...
> Any ideas as to what may be happening here. I will leave it as
I'd rather leave timesten experimental; I haven't ever tested it, and
yours is the first (negative) report I see, so I definitely agree it's
experimental. On the contrary, I have some evidence of success with
postgres, mysql and mssql.
If there's any specific issue (of the above, including all) that you want
to be seriously tracked, please file an ITS.
SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax: +390382476497