Re: ITS #7161, ppolicy pwdFailureTime resolution should be better than 1 second

[Howard Chu <hyc@symas.com>]

Paul B. Henson wrote:
> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 08:51:02PM -0700, Howard Chu wrote:
>
> > You need to actually use microseconds, since the time-increment is
> > only unique on the local server and will not guarantee uniqueness in a
> > replication scenario.
>
> Attached is an updated patch for this ITS which uses microseconds rather
> than the time-increment, maintains the semantics of "now" being when the
> code is called rather than when the operation began, and copies the
> first timestamp to create a second with microseconds rather than
> redundantly calling slapd_timestamp.
>
> Let me know if there's anything else that needs to be fixed or changed.

You've got the right idea now but not making best use of the APIs.

ldap_pvt_gettime() returns structured time. There is no reason to then call 
lutil_tm2time() to turn it into seconds, and then call slap_timestamp() which 
must turn seconds into structured time again for formatting. Personally I 
would just sprintf a timestamp here using the lutil_tm structure.

--
  -- Howard Chu
  CTO, Symas Corp.           http://www.symas.com
  Director, Highland Sun     http://highlandsun.com/hyc/
  Chief Architect, OpenLDAP  http://www.openldap.org/project/