[Date Prev][Date Next]
RE: OpenLDAP + Oracle 10g - ldapsearch returns no result, ldapmodify returns failure
> Hi Pierangelo,
> Thanks for pointing out and thank Zhang Pu gave me a lot help also.
> I am able to perform ldapsearch and got the result.
> As next step, I added a new person object using the following
> ldif data and added without any errors on console.
> [root@agito-rm root]# cat tk_0.ldif
> dn: cn=Person0,o=sql,c=RU
> objectClass: Person
> cn: Person0
> sn: A
> [root@agito-rm root]# /usr/openldap/bin/ldapadd -x -D
> "cn=root,o=sql,c=RU" -w cisco -f tk_0.ldif
> adding new entry "cn=Person0,o=sql,c=RU"
> But, I can not find this new entry when I performed another ldapsearch.
> I use SQLplus to perform "select * from ldap_entries" and found out that
> KEYVAL value for this new entry is "0".
> ID DN DN_RU OC_MAP_ID PARENT KEYVAL
> 1 o=sql,c=RU 3 0 1
> 2 cn=Mitya Kovalev,o=sql,c=RU 1 1 1
> 3 cn=Torvlobnor Puzdoy,o=sql,c=RU 1 1 2
> 4 cn=Akakiy Zinberstein,o=sql,c=RU 1 1 3
> 5 cn=Akakiy Z002,o=sql,c=RU 1 1 4
> 6 cn=Person0,o=sql,c=RU 1 1 0
> Shouldn't this KEYVAL be "5" ?
> From the 'slapd -d -1' log, looks like it passed in "0" instead of "5":
> backsql_add(): executing "INSERT INTO ldap_entries
> VALUES ((select max(id) +1 from
> ldap_entries),?,?,?,?)" for dn "cn=Person0,o=sql,c=RU"
> for oc_map_id=1, parent_id=1, keyval=0
> I also performed "select * from persons" and found out that
> the value for NAME column is 1 "blank space" for this new entry.
> ID NAME
> 1 Mitya Kovalev
> 2 Torvlobnor Puzdoy
> 3 Akakiy Zinberstein
> 4 Akakiy Z002
> Could it be some sql statement problems in testdb_metadata_wo_d.sql?
As far as I remember, te test metadata assumes the CN is made of two words
separated by a blank, and the sn and the givenName are formed by splitting
this string at the blank. As such, the ADD operation may have ended in a
broken state because you supplied an inconsistent CN. This type of
conditions is better handled in OpenLDAP 2.3's back-sql, where failed
writes are not supposed to leave trash in the database. But this is just
a guess, your problem may well be elsewhere. Given the enormous amount of
(un)intended interactions between back-sql and the underlying RDBMS,
including the way the metadata is written, there may well be other
reasons. I've never used Oracle with back-sql, so I'm not aware of any of
the above issues.
SysNet - via Dossi,8 27100 Pavia Tel: +390382573859 Fax: +390382476497